[jmaroneps37]

Now Obama's people are saying 6 of the 19 banks failed. Based on this information how can we believe anything about the condition of banks? Remember we the taxpayers gave banks BILLIONS and BILLIONS and never even got an idea of what they would be doing with our money.

[ozark hilljilly]

Welcome to the New Normal of Bananaland:
All chairs are blue and no chairs are blue.

[trad_anglican]

According to an analysis prepared by Tyler Durden at http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/

It would lend credibility if "Coach" Collins would refrain from quoting bloggers using pseudonyms.

[snowsislander]

So, 150 auditors took one month to examine 19 banks while in real life it takes “hundred of examiners” months to audit a single bank. Anyone who believes this report honestly says anything about American banks is a fool or works in the media.

If this were an audit, the author might have a point, but it's not an audit, and if he would carefully read the Fed document, I think he would come to a different conclusion.

Two economic scenarios were played out at 19 institutions, based on position data from a fixed point of February 20, 2009. I find this a reasonable idea, and I don't think that it would take the thousands of regulatory participants, as the author seems to suggest (19 times "hundreds of examiners"), to carry this out.

[Syrin23]

We DON’T want the banks to fail this sham of a test. If all tested banks “failed”, then that would be the excuse the gov’t would use to step in and completely privatize the banking system. Frankly, I am shocked that ANY bank “passed” this “test”.