-

That's the problem.

First of all that's an all-stock deal and didn't cost BOA a penny of cash. It jut didn't have the cash. 

BAC stock was down >20% this Monday on the news. That's the market's vote on the deal. Lewis and Thain first talked to each other on the Saturday and deal was reached on Sunday. Due delligence? What due delligence? Currently MBS markets are virtually shut down. That means there's no mark-to-market and I-banks can price their book value whatever they want - just as Lehman has shown us. BOA has no idea what it has bought.  Adding to the problem is the Countrywide deal, also invloving a garbage book of who-knows-what.

Why buy Merrill? Somebody from "high above" wanted that and applied certain pressure on BOA. Otherwise Merrill could fail. BOA has a little motivation, too: by acquiring one more big guy it may make itself "too big too fail". At the end of the day, though, the worst situation is now it makes itself too big to save.  

That is simply not true. BOA has plenty of cash...not having cash is not the reason that mer is based on stock transaction..

原来在这忙活呢            

昨天我那个帖子里有了点小不愉快，我觉得是大家对炒股结果有根本不同的认识。我炒得很少，也都是n年前的事情了，所以想问问这里常玩的筒子，到底这个是怎么回事儿。

我一直的感觉就是，机构投资者是有信息和资源优势的。在这个情况下，散户很难保持一个常年累计的一个良好战绩。我觉得散户做10%return很高了。但是有些人觉得10%太低了。

我是这么想的，如果散户能长期达到10%的收益，那么作为专业的hedge funds, prop desks,也能够leverage,长期收益应该是50%-100%。但是事实上不是这样的（我是说equity。fixed income这里不做讨论）。如果不是这样的，那么散户长期达到10%是一个不切实际的想法。

我这个逻辑是不是有问题？

昨天我那个帖子里有了点小不愉快，我觉得是大家对炒股结果有根本不同的认识。我炒得很少，也都是n年前的事情了，所以想问问这里常玩的筒子，到底这个是怎么回事儿。

我一直的感觉就是，机构投资者是有信息和资源优势的。在这个情况下，散户很难保持一个常年累计的一个良好战绩。我觉得散户做10%return很高了。但是有些人觉得10%太低了。

我是这么想的，如果散户能长期达到10%的收益，那么作为专业的hedge funds, prop desks,也能够leverage,长期收益应该是50%-100%。但是事实上不是这样的（我是说equity。fixed income这里不做讨论）。如果不是这样的，那么散户长期达到10%是一个不切实际的想法。

我这个逻辑是不是有问题？

我倒是没有不愉快。xixi。

mm说的这个炒法，大概一周需要几个小时的工作啊？长期10%真是很不错了。尤其是经历了上周这种情形。

谢谢。