I am sorry, but I can't let this go on.

"Illiquid Assets". This has got to be one the weakest criticisms I've ever seen. I agree that those assets may have been better invested (though I don't know the interest rate they're getting) - like in more share buy-backs or to significantly decrease S&L's holdings. But to proclaim them "illiquid", as in not accessible, demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the most fundamental business concepts. Or a blatant attempt to deceive.

Say you pay cash for a house. An "illiquid asset" per his declaration (especially in the current market). You need cash? I guess it's just too bad - you only hold an illiquid asset.

Is everyone here so blind as to not see through this? Ever heard of a thing called collateral? We can readily borrow against that "illiquid asset" - AAA rated/fully backed - at any time. Yup it will cost us - very little in the scheme of things (any interest expense is offset to large degree by the interest we're earning on the asset).

And people promote this criticism? Amazing... What was it that Huntington said is not going on?

Apologies... Back to lurking.

SGE