<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>GlobalSpeculation.com &#187; ETFC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.globalspeculation.com/archives/category/etfc/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.globalspeculation.com</link>
	<description>Bargain hunting for the sport</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:23:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>C vs ETFC</title>
		<link>http://www.globalspeculation.com/archives/154</link>
		<comments>http://www.globalspeculation.com/archives/154#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:28:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Glen Bradford</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[C]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ETFC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~gbradfor/gs/?p=154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well the shorts prefer shorting c http://shortsqueeze.com/?symbol=c&#038;submit=Short+Quote%99 insider transactions look better with c http://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=c&#038;ta=1&#038;p=d mutual funds prefer etfc http://www.thebuylist.com/default.aspx?Stock=etfc etfc’s technicals are stronger http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=etfc&#038;p=D&#038;yr=0&#038;mn=6&#038;dy=0&#038;id=p04446711432 consensus.. Citigroup is more risky! Surprise!!!! So, if we think that citi will survive this, we will make more money, especially In the short term, because this thing is set to [...]<script type="text/javascript">SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "C vs ETFC", url: "http://www.globalspeculation.com/archives/154" });</script>]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well the shorts prefer shorting c</p>
<p>http://shortsqueeze.com/?symbol=c&#038;submit=Short+Quote%99</p>
<p>insider transactions look better with c</p>
<p>http://finviz.com/quote.ashx?t=c&#038;ta=1&#038;p=d</p>
<p>mutual funds prefer etfc</p>
<p>http://www.thebuylist.com/default.aspx?Stock=etfc</p>
<p>etfc’s technicals are stronger</p>
<p>http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=etfc&#038;p=D&#038;yr=0&#038;mn=6&#038;dy=0&#038;id=p04446711432</p>
<p>consensus.. Citigroup is more risky! Surprise!!!!</p>
<p>So, if we think that citi will survive this, we will make more money, especially In the short term, because this thing is set to be a short squeeze rocket.</p>
<p>What do we know about Citi?</p>
<p>http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/10/news/companies/citi_profitable.reut/<br />1. It was profitable or claims to be profitable in the first 2 months of 2009.<br />2. Mark-to-profit accounting<br />3. Selling less than book value $13<br />4. Selling at a P/E of less than 2 according to historical earnings<br />5. Other banks are putting down record numbers, citi is set to follow suit on Friday. That’s my take.</p>
<p>I’ll stick with citi because there is tremendous upside on Friday. I think the risk is limited due to the first 2 points and the last point.</p>
<p>http://finance.google.com/group/google.finance.662713/browse_thread/thread/8b63f678f81ce445</p>
<p>Hope this helps,<br />Glen</p>
<p>From: Andy C <br />Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:51 PM<br />To: Bradford, Glen Richard<br />Subject: Re: C or ETFC?</p>
<p>Thanks for the response. I&#8217;m not really that familiar with what ETFC has done lately but I noticed they had a loss in 2007 larger than in 2008, which seemed a little odd to me considering the economic conditions. I&#8217;m fairly diversified (at least long term) but I recognize there&#8217;s some money to be made short-term in the financial sector right now. I saw you recommended FAS, but the way people play that stock and FAZ makes me a little nervous because I&#8217;m not completely familiar with how it all works. I&#8217;m fine with risk, but only when I know what I&#8217;m getting into <img src='http://www.globalspeculation.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> .</p>
<p>I put an order in for a small amount of C but I don&#8217;t know if it will be filled today at all. Still very interested to hear what you find on ETFC vs C!</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />Andy<br />On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Bradford, Glen Richard <gbra> wrote:<br />Food for thought:</p>
<p>In situations like this, where it’s hard to know exactly what’s going on… the best bet is to diversify.</p>
<p>My big bank bets mostly are along the lines of the earnings they have done in 2006 and how I understand they’ve reacted over the past 2 years aka taken precautionary measures, government bailouts, etc.</p>
<p>I’ll take a deeper look at ETFC vs C tonight</p>
<p>From: Andy C<br />Sent: Wedn<br />Subject: C or ETFC?</p>
<p>Glen,<br />What do you think of ETFC right now? They seem pretty undervalued. I have some money to put in today and I&#8217;m trying to decide between ETFC or C, with earnings coming out soon for both of them. I originally had a position in C that I sold at 3.75 so I&#8217;m a little hesitant to get back in around that price again, since I know there&#8217;s a bigger downside to be had. Does it come down to &#8216;ETFC = safer&#8217;?</p>
<p>Thanks,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p><a href="http://sharethis.com/item?&wp=3.3.1&amp;publisher=833b02f5-53cc-4c5d-a1fc-c7e400ce9ca2&amp;title=C+vs+ETFC&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalspeculation.com%2Farchives%2F154">ShareThis</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.globalspeculation.com/archives/154/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced)

Served from: www.globalspeculation.com @ 2012-02-09 15:36:49 -->
