Because we’re already dead inside. But no, seriously, while it is deeply upsetting that former Countrywide CEO and current Bank of America window-washer Angelo Mozilo will no longer be able to log-on to this here site from the comfort of your desktop, as Dealbreaker was blocked at BAC as of 2:30PM today, a mobile version of DB is being rolled out shortly, and we had the foresight to buy the lil’ fella an iPhone for his birthday. That’s all, and good luck with your firings.
PS: If this was an “accident,” like asking the Bank of Amerillwiders who landed in the Hudson to hand over the reimbursed money from US Airways, let us know and it’s all good.

Sign up for the Dealbreaker newsletter

Subscribe to our free daily email and get breaking news, financial headlines, commentary, and analysis from Dealbreaker.

— Advertisement —

Comments (54)

  1. Posted by trojan | February 19, 2009 at 3:07 PM
  2. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:14 PM

    I thought you guys were blocked a couple of weeks ago.

  3. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:18 PM

    Bess -
    Looks like my office can still log on.
    John Thain just told me he is blocked.
    Angelo

  4. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:22 PM

    its blocked on the work bb too! you can’t keep us away Ken! We will find a way to read DB – which I am currently doing from my desk! Mwhahahaha!

  5. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM

    I love Bess.

  6. Posted by Lowly Assistant | February 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM

    For serious question: are you ladies really unleashing DB to the bberry folk? I think it’s a fantastic idea, if so. I feel like there’s already a way to comment, but I like sleeping with my blanket of ignorance, and I’d rather you do the work.

  7. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM

    Not blocked at ML. It was the last time you reported, but we are up and running now.

  8. Posted by Bess Levin | February 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM

    @2- no, that was MER, BAC just happened today.

  9. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:27 PM

    You are back on at Merrill. I wonder why? They seem finicky.

  10. Posted by Bess Levin | February 19, 2009 at 3:27 PM

    @7- I know, but shh, don’t want to give them any ideas to reinstate the ban.

  11. Posted by Garuda | February 19, 2009 at 3:27 PM

    “You can’t read this” — signed, Powerful Individuals.
    Not too far from burning books.

  12. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM

    @ 3 – Legacy BAS employees were not blocked previously. I can only speculate that the block will coincide with junior level firings (some of which are rumored to take place next Thursday).
    As you can imagine, morale is at an all time high here. One team, one dream!
    Ace G – from my iPhone

  13. Posted by Investorcluzo | February 19, 2009 at 3:31 PM

    if the hicks in charlotte spent as much time focusing on the business of paying back the tarp money as they did trying to figure out how to block db, maybe the stock wouldn’t be trading under $4! right now the bear stearns deal is looking pretty damn good!

  14. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:33 PM

    we’re on at ML. Were off when you guys last reported, but have been on for a week or so.

  15. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:34 PM

    In keeping with the Huffpost — they censor if you dont believe alec Baldwin to be brilliant. Arianna –wasn’t she the coat check at San Pietro until Michael Huffington’s billions walked thru the door? Can you say the Stassinopoulos Post.

  16. Posted by blndebnker | February 19, 2009 at 3:39 PM

    @Cluz – Nope, still not looking good. Just slightly better.

  17. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:41 PM

    @13 Excellent point. Remember the outrage almost a year ago when Bear Stearns & Co sold for as much as the Bailey Savings & Loan was worth after George & Mary’s net weddings’ contributions?

  18. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:45 PM

    thain took the carpet and the server

  19. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:46 PM

    cluz: the stock is

  20. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:47 PM

    I wrote @7 and went to refresh and found myself blocked. Looks like the Internet Nazis have taken control at ML too now.
    - from my iPhone

  21. Posted by Lowly Assistant | February 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM

    And the fundamental analysis would read???

  22. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM

    @22 no he’s in Canada today

  23. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM

    definitely down. And not because websense mistook it for a forum.

  24. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 3:57 PM

    22 I think the fundamentals point to a firm worth much more. My point however is that the market is saying that for this institution (as well as for C) the fundamentals don’t matter at this time. Why do 10 years of DCF analysis for the business when there’s a chance that the equity holders could be wiped out in the near term, leaving the cash flow to their successors.

  25. Posted by Investorcluzo | February 19, 2009 at 3:58 PM

    @blndebnker – good point. I just wish I had taken note back then, so much for too big to fail. spent too much time watching my puts on wfc (should have rode them both down).
    @20 – interesting. I don’t have good trading data, so I can’t see the orders. need to get a better trading account. I’ve heard interactive brokers is good, but will my money be safe?

  26. Posted by Lowly Assistant | February 19, 2009 at 4:05 PM

    25,
    Is this another, “If these assets were priced in the past or the future, you’d see they’d be well above their market value today” statement? That’s bullshit. Just because your books aren’t easy on the eyes right now doesn’t mean they necessarily should be in the future? And judging by what we know today, the “value” of all this shit stemming from the glory days of 2005-2006 was a complete farce. The value perceived at that time was/is not akin to actual value, as we’re all finding out today.
    Why do DCF analysis at all, when it’s been discovered to be totally inaccurate (that was just to thrown in there to be silly, but c’mon).

  27. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 4:12 PM

    27 No, no. Consider this: I’m a portfolio manager, so my worldview (in totally oversimplified terms) is that two things are going on here. 1) a viable business is there that’s wounded but generates returns and will continue to do so in some form that can be modeled (from asset management and underwriting down to overdraft and ATM fees) and 2) a toxic balance sheet, filled with unrealized and difficult to value losses. And the equity is priced as if #2 is going to wipe out the shareholders, so that the value of #1 is going to accrue to someone else. So why spend a lot of time trying to value #1.

  28. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 4:14 PM

    Lowly: 28 here again. BTW, why so feisty today? You’re one of my fav commenters. Usually witty, smart and mellow at the same time.

  29. Posted by Investorcluzo | February 19, 2009 at 4:26 PM

    @27/28 – as a guy who has looked at financials for my entire adult life, there is one maxim that has held true in both up and down markets: the numbers are what management says they are – until proven otherwise. thus, you shouldn’t invest in a financial institution unless you trust the management. the fact that traders can’t seem to value these assets, what makes you think a bunch of faux investment bankers can? at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself: do you trust that hick to run anything besides a commercial bank? the market is saying overwhelmingly NO!
    btw. I’m still waiting on the a$$clown “guest” who told me that I was wrong about my call on wfc. yet another bank that is headed for the pink sheets…

  30. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 4:27 PM

    If B of A is run by a bunch of hicks, what does it say about the once mighty thundering herd?
    How come your powerful NYC one stop, Citi, could not acquire them on the cheap? How come all those great and mighty investment banks like Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers could not swoop in and pick up ML’s book?
    Yeah, seriously shut the fuck up and die already, cluzo.

  31. Posted by Lowly Assistant | February 19, 2009 at 4:33 PM

    28/29,
    Women troubles/trying to cut-down drinking at work.
    I do agree with you that C and BofA are attractive in a “let’s open the cork and let ‘er breathe way,” but who has the time/patience/money to wait for both entities to bleed their flaws? I truly don’t believe they’re valued correctly right now. They’re stagnant, because everyone’s tired of running the numbers and getting nowhere (except down).
    This is a stupid analogy (however, funny), but did you ever see the “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” episode where they pump gas into garbage cans in order to sit on their purchase, waiting for prices to skyrocket?
    Ken Lewis is the Wild Card.

  32. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 4:41 PM

    @30 – agree 100%…Ken Lewis is a moron. listen to the market.
    http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forums/bad-blood-at-bank-of-amerrill-lynch

  33. Posted by Investorcluzo | February 19, 2009 at 4:57 PM

    @31 – seriously, is that all you have? I know you are one of the hick’s charlotte lackeys, so I’ll ask you two questions:
    (1) how much did bofa pay for the thundering herd? (2) what’s bac’s market cap today?
    okay, back cleaning the horse stables for you. when you’re done with that, you might want to stick to the yahoo board…or just stfu until you learn some manners, b1tch.

  34. Posted by Lowly Assistant | February 19, 2009 at 5:05 PM

    Jesus, Cluzo. Same as me re: Women troubles/trying to cut-down drinking at work?

  35. Posted by Lowly Assistant | February 19, 2009 at 5:07 PM

    Btw, not, like, “women troubles,” but, like, “Bitches be bringin’ me down” troubles.
    Muffie, call me.

  36. Posted by Investorcluzo | February 19, 2009 at 5:18 PM

    @lowly – no, I need a damn drink. the clowns talkin’ all that country bumpkin nonsense are getting me all worked up. I have to keep looking at my wfc position to remind myself that the “market” agrees with my analysis…regardless of whether or not the “guest” posters see the error of their ways.

  37. Posted by Anal_yst | February 19, 2009 at 5:42 PM

    @ Cluzo/Lowly
    hear ya’ on both counts, sigh…

  38. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 6:08 PM

    Yeah, Cluzo. Dixie has clearly cornered the market on ineffective investment banking.

  39. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 7:30 PM

    We figured the clopping of DB was bound to happen when the email went out about blocking blogs. Bess – how long until mobile version is available? We need that stat!

  40. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 8:11 PM

    ML trading floor is pretty empty these days, the guys on the desks are beyond being scared, they just don’t give a f–k anymore. Some of the derivatives traders and support were moved to BoA’s headquarters recently (“Death Star”). At the rate these hicks are going, pretty soon there will be nothing left of ML except the name and the logo. Everyone will be fired. And then we can all say Ken is the DUMBEST retail banker to inherit an investment bank.

  41. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 8:36 PM

    kenny only prefers flagscape for his slaves, where he can boast as much about his STRONG CORE, without anyone asking him a single question.

  42. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 9:19 PM

    What a “fucktardian” move. We rely heavily on DB to tell us what is going on inside of our Bank of Amerillwide given the exeutive suite has gone into hiding. No one below Band 1 has a clue as to our direction. Morale is word one can find in the dictionary. BAC is a ship that has lost its way and is drifitng along the high seas.
    Cuda

  43. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 9:26 PM

    @42 Flagscape blows just like KL. So to your point, and if you put 2+2 together, the only reason KL posts this crap to flagscape is because, as I have been told on many occassions, its difficult to respond to questions with a cock in your mouth.
    Cuda

  44. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 10:47 PM

    DealBreaker -
    You will be missed. You were our only source of information about BAC as Charlotte and our NYC managers tell us nothing.
    Sincerely,
    1 Bryant Park Analysts and Associates

  45. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 10:48 PM

    about fucking time you rolled out a blackberry friendly version

  46. Posted by guest | February 19, 2009 at 10:54 PM

    I wouldn’t be so pissed about the block if the rss feed didn’t wait all day to load, maybe someone should start looking at “technology” for the site re: comments and rss feed

  47. Posted by guest | February 20, 2009 at 7:19 AM

    We still have iGoogle…can’t see comments though.

  48. Posted by guest | February 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

    Unfettered access to DB at OBP through the following steps…
    Go to your Bloomberg. Search under News for Basel II. Click on a story from the web (Gray lettering on the left). Get to a website that has a Google search field at the bottom of the browser window. Type in Dealbreaker.
    Read and enjoy!

  49. Posted by guest | February 20, 2009 at 8:57 AM

    Unfettered access to DB at OBP through the following steps…
    Go to your Bloomberg. Search under News for Basel II. Click on a story from the web (Gray lettering on the left). Get to a website that has a Google search field at the bottom of the browser window. Type in Dealbreaker.
    Read and enjoy!

  50. Posted by guest | February 20, 2009 at 8:58 AM

    Unfettered access to DB at OBP through the following steps…
    Go to your Bloomberg. Search under News for Basel II. Click on a story from the web (Gray lettering on the left). Get to a website that has a Google search field at the bottom of the browser window. Type in Dealbreaker.
    Read and enjoy!

  51. Posted by guest | February 20, 2009 at 9:06 AM

    Good move assclown, that will now be blocked by tech in the next 10 minutes..

  52. Posted by guest | February 20, 2009 at 9:33 AM

    Triple posting on DB doesn’t help the reputation BofA associates have on the Street.

  53. Posted by guest | February 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM

    works through the bloom

  54. Posted by guest | February 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM

    works through the bloom

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.