Adding Reply Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic Keep an eye on Merrill Lynch; it may not survive this subprime mess Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post yankeefan Posted at 10:28 pm on Sep. 12, 2008 Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Fannie, Freddie, Lehman who may be next in line? Merrill Lynch it sold its share of bloomberg for 4.5 billion and issued stock to raise some capital and shore up its balance sheet but if this crisis deepens, they may not have enough cash to get through this intact

Replies obvious child Posted at 11:59 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Keep pretending whatever you wish. I've clearly made my point regarding context. And you are clearly disregarding it to suit your own agenda. If and when you want to discuss things like an intelligent, honest person, feel free to drop me a line. Until then, do whatever you wish. yankeefan Posted at 7:56 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 You said you made an argument when you clearly did and yet you're calling me a liar.  That's the kind of lie you post CONSTANTLY. Quote: from obvious child at 10:39 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:36 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 By your logic, even if a firm doesn't exist anymore, it still survives.   Incorrect. And you are again engaging in serious dishonesty. I never argued your lies. How about you actually read what I wrote instead of fabricating lies and attacking me on things I never argued?   Quote: from obvious child at 5:29 pm on Sep. 13, 2008   ML will survive. No question.   http://ir.ml.com/summaryconsolidatedbalancesheet.cfm Merrill Lynch will no longer exists.  You DID make that argument. You saying that you didn't shows that you're a complete liar. obvious child Posted at 7:54 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Notice the discussion was regarding insolvency. Not being bought out. By your logic, if a firm gets bought out, they are insolvent. I argued that ML would survive the crisis based on their balance sheet. I did not argue they wouldn't get bought out. The discussion was about whether or not they would survive in the context of bankruptcy. So you are again, dishonestly trying to change the context of the situation to make your argument correct when, if we honestly applied the real context, you are indeed lying.   Yankee Fan = Liar yankeefan Posted at 7:52 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 10:39 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:36 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 By your logic, even if a firm doesn't exist anymore, it still survives. Incorrect. And you are again engaging in serious dishonesty. I never argued your lies. How about you actually read what I wrote instead of fabricating lies and attacking me on things I never argued?   Quote: from obvious child at 5:29 pm on Sep. 13, 2008 ML will survive. No question.   http://ir.ml.com/summaryconsolidatedbalancesheet.cfm Merrill Lynch will no longer exists.  You DID make that argument. You saying that you didn't shows that you're a complete liar. obvious child Posted at 7:48 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:43 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 You said that Merrill Lynch WILL survive.  You stand by that statement. In the context of bankruptcy yes. How am I lying? Did ML go bankrupt?   Apparently you never read this: Notice the discussion was regarding insolvency. Not being bought out. By your logic, if a firm gets bought out, they are insolvent. I argued that ML would survive the crisis based on their balance sheet. I did not argue they wouldn't get bought out. The discussion was about whether or not they would survive in the context of bankruptcy. So you are again, dishonestly trying to change the context of the situation to make your argument correct when, if we honestly applied the real context, you are indeed lying.     BEAR never declared bankruptcy.  It never went bankrupt.  It was about to be bankrupt is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what WOULD have happened, the only thing matters is what happened. While that is true they never declared, they were on the verge. ML was not.   Without the JPMorgan backing, the filing says, "Bear Stearns would not be able to open for business on Monday, March 24, 2008, and would have no choice but to file for bankruptcy by that morning. Bear Stearns' bankruptcy advisors were instructed to be prepared for this contingency by the end of the weekend." Bear Stearns second brush with bankruptcy , Fannie and freddie never went bankrupt. They came very close. It never went bankrupt.  It was about to be bankrupt is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what WOULD have happened, the only thing matters is what happened. Actually it is relevant. Explain why it is not. lol. Good job on noticing that the mods will allow such massive lies.   How about you stop lying and start reading?   But thanks for admitting by your silence you got nothing to respond to my refutation of your garbage my last long post and you got nothing against it but lies. yankeefan Posted at 7:43 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 10:39 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Incorrect. And you are again engaging in serious dishonesty. I never argued your lies. How about you actually read what I wrote instead of fabricating lies and attacking me on things I never argued? Your lies are endless. You said that Merrill Lynch WILL survive. You stand by that statement. Merrill Lynch will not exist by this time next year. Therefore, if something doesn't exist, it still survived! Bear Stearns survived!!   Way to go.   Incorrect. According to you, Bear Stearns survived. I never made an argument. You fabricated one and attacked me on it. Therefore, the owner of that argument is yourself. Please send all discussions of that argument back to the person who made it.   But thanks for admitting by your silence you got nothing to respond to my refutation of your garbage You said that Merrill Lynch WILL survive. You stand by that statement. Merrill Lynch will not exist by this time next year. Therefore, if something doesn't exist, it still survived! Bear Stearns survived!!   Way to go. You just quoted four who went under or were taken over due to pending bankruptcy. I wonder! Bear, Fannie and freddie never went bankrupt. It never went bankrupt.  It was about to be bankrupt is irrelevant.  It doesn't matter what WOULD have happened, the only thing matters is what happened. obvious child Posted at 7:39 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:36 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 By your logic, even if a firm doesn't exist anymore, it still survives. Incorrect. And you are again engaging in serious dishonesty. I never argued your lies. How about you actually read what I wrote instead of fabricating lies and attacking me on things I never argued? That is the kind of ridiculous arguments that you are using.  I never mentioned bankruptcy You just quoted four who went under or were taken over due to pending bankruptcy. I wonder! Again, according to you, Bear Stearns survived! Incorrect. According to you, Bear Stearns survived. I never made an argument. You fabricated one and attacked me on it. Therefore, the owner of that argument is yourself. Please send all discussions of that argument back to the person who made it. But thanks for admitting by your silence you got nothing to respond to my refutation of your garbage yankeefan Posted at 7:36 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 10:34 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan Notice the discussion was regarding insolvency. Not being bought out. By your logic, if a firm gets bought out, they are insolvent. I argued that ML would survive the crisis based on their balance sheet. I did not argue they wouldn't get bought out. The discussion was about whether or not they would survive in the context of bankruptcy. So you are again, dishonestly trying to change the context of the situation to make your argument correct when, if we honestly applied the real context, you are indeed lying. By your logic, even if a firm doesn't exist anymore, it still survives. That is the kind of ridiculous arguments that you are using.  I never mentioned bankruptcy.   Again, according to you, Bear Stearns survived! obvious child Posted at 7:34 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:31 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 will Merrill Lynch still exist by this time next year? Notice the discussion was regarding insolvency. Not being bought out. By your logic, if a firm gets bought out, they are insolvent. I argued that ML would survive the crisis based on their balance sheet. I did not argue they wouldn't get bought out. The discussion was about whether or not they would survive in the context of bankruptcy. So you are again, dishonestly trying to change the context of the situation to make your argument correct when, if we honestly applied the real context, you are indeed lying.   By your logic, Bear Stearns still survived!!  LOLOLOLOL   Incorrect. Read above for why you are not only wrong, but dishonest.   But thanks for admitting by your silence you got nothing to respond to my refutation of your garbage And generally you want to give someone more then 2 minutes to respond before making such wild accusations. yankeefan Posted at 7:31 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 10:29 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 And did Merill Lynch go bankrupt? Or do you not understand what  "solvent" means? And I didn't expect you to answer any hard questions anyways. You clearly have no understanding of finance much less accounting. will Merrill Lynch still exist by this time next year? By your logic, Bear Stearns still survived!! LOLOLOLOL I take it from your silence that you acknowledge you're a complete liar for failing to acknowledge your own arguments, yes? obvious child Posted at 7:29 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 And did Merill Lynch go bankrupt? Or do you not understand what  "solvent" means? And I didn't expect you to answer any hard questions anyways. You clearly have no understanding of finance much less accounting. yankeefan Posted at 7:27 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from obvious child at 10:22 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:13 pm on Sep. 22, 2008Quote: from obvious child You specifically stated that you can tell a firm's solvency by its balance sheet. I already told you why this is not the case. Your failure to focus on relevant subjects proves that your argument is extremely weak.   Really? I said that? Care to quote me? Quote: from obvious child at 5:29 pm on Sep. 13, 2008 ML will survive. No question. http://ir.ml.com/summaryconsolidatedbalancesheet.cfm Obvious_child = complete liar can't even remember his own arguments obvious child Posted at 7:22 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:13 pm on Sep. 22, 2008Quote: from obvious child You specifically stated that you can tell a firm's solvency by its balance sheet. I already told you why this is not the case. Your failure to focus on relevant subjects proves that your argument is extremely weak. Really? I said that? Care to quote me? And you didn't answer my question. What did I write that was irrelevant? Explain to me how the assets and how they are evaluated are irrelevant to the issue of balance sheets.   Irrelevant. You cited financial statements and disclosures that were IRRELEVANT to the discussion. Come again? You claimed I cited other F/S. Where are they? Where are the quotes? Or are you lying again? Other then the income statement, what other F/S did it cite? Can you quote me talking about the statement of cash flows? How about the statement of retained earnings? Not going to answer those I see. When asked to back your statements up, you got nothing. Furthermore, how are disclosures irrelevant? How? Give an argument for a change. And why is the income statement irrelevant? All you are saying is "irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant" and you have no proof of why they are irrelevant. I never said that liquidity issues are unrelated to insolvency. Yet you called my discussion about liquidity that was specifically discussing solvency to be irrelevant. the topic is specifically on insolvency and yet you're talking about short term illiquidity vs. long term viability Hmmm....caught in your own web of lies. You stated that Merrill Lynch only needed short term liquidity; that is irrelevant. Solvency is the real issue here, not long term viability. How is that irrelevant? You clearly don't understand. Explain to me how increasing short term liquidity to pay off obligations is not related to solvency. You just claimed that short term liquidity was irrelevant. Explain to me how liquidity is irrelevant to solvency. Try for a change instead of one liners without an argument. You completely miss the point. Yet again. Well you don't seem to have any points, so sure I'll miss it. Try again when you get a decent education on financial statements. Did you just hear yourself? Again, that's funny coming from someone who doesn't know where disclosures are, doesn't know which financial statements are which, doesn't know what is on each statement and doesn't understand the relationship of liquidity to solvency.   yankeefan Posted at 7:13 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from obvious child How are they irrelevant? Please. Explain to me how the assets and how they are evaluated are irrelevant to the issue of balance sheets. Or are you just going to try to insult me again? I realize you have no idea what a L1, L2 or an L3 is, but please try. What exactly did I write that is irreverent? You specifically stated that you can tell a firm's solvency by its balance sheet. I already told you why this is not the case. Your failure to focus on relevant subjects proves that your "argument" is extremely weak.   Other then the income statement, what other F/S did it cite? Can you quote me talking about the statement of cash flows? How about the statement of retained earnings? And disclosures are on the balance sheet as well. For someone who criticizes another for their alleged lack of knowledge, you sure don't seem to understand the basics. Irrelevant. You cited financial statements and disclosures that were IRRELEVANT to the discussion. I take it you don't understand the relationship? Explain to me how liquidity issues are unrelated to insolvency. I'd love to see this. I never said that liquidity issues are unrelated to insolvency. You stated that Merrill Lynch only needed short term liquidity; that is irrelevant. Solvency is the real issue here, not long term viability. You completely miss the point. Yet again. That's funny coming from someone who doesn't know where disclosures are, doesn't know which financial statements are which, doesn't know what is on each statement and doesn't understand the relationship of liquidity to solvency. You're funny. resorting to insults when you have no argument. THAT is funny. Try again when you get a decent education on financial statements. obvious child Posted at 7:07 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 Quote: from yankeefan at 4:01 pm on Sep. 22, 2008 not my fault you can't focus on solvency and balance sheets; you specifically cited disclosures and specific classes of assets when that is irrelevant to the discussion How are they irrelevant? Please. Explain to me how the assets and how they are evaluated are irrelevant to the issue of balance sheets. Or are you just going to try to insult me again? I realize you have no idea what a L1, L2 or an L3 is, but please try. What exactly did I write that is irreverent? you specifically stated balance sheets but then cited other financial statements and disclosures Other then the income statement, what other F/S did it cite? Can you quote me talking about the statement of cash flows? How about the statement of retained earnings? And disclosures are on the balance sheet as well. For someone who criticizes another for their alleged lack of knowledge, you sure don't seem to understand the basics. the topic is specifically on insolvency and yet you're talking about short term illiquidity vs. long term viability I take it you don't understand the relationship? Explain to me how liquidity issues are unrelated to insolvency. I'd love to see this.   you have completely missed the point of the debate try again when you know what you're talking about That's funny coming from someone who doesn't know where disclosures are, doesn't know which financial statements are which, doesn't know what is on each statement and doesn't understand the relationship of liquidity to solvency. You're funny. Most recent 15 of 59 previous replies displayed.