SWCBonfire said:

---

Isn't there an inverse Jim Cramer ETF?

---

There are inverse ETFs for sure, but I don't know about one specific to him.

If you find it, please share with the rest of the class.

cone said:

---

the pressure on Jay Powell must be completely crushing

---

I think Powell has come to the realization that he must become the Batman for the markets. I don't think he cares about his short-term reputation, nor should he. He's only one man, but he can take steps (rising rates) to combat the financial insanity that resulted in "tech" companies lighting money on fire to try and push scale.

This says SJIM

https://www.thestreet.com/etffocus/blog/inverse-cramer-etf-is-live

Wow, thank you. Gonna put that on my watchlist.

tremble said:

---

cone said:

---

the pressure on Jay Powell must be completely crushing

---

I think Powell has come to the realization that he must become the Batman for the markets. I don't think he cares about his short-term reputation, nor should he. He's only one man, but he can take steps (rising rates) to combat the financial insanity that resulted in "tech" companies lighting money on fire to try and push scale.

---

Yes, I agree, I think we're looking at another .5% increase very soon.

Edited to add: people who have variable interest rate ANYTHING are going to start dying.

Quote:

---

I think Powell has come to the realization that he must become the Batman for the markets.

---

i hope he's got the stomach for the fight

he's got the chance/opportunity to set up the US for the next 40 years

Dies Irae said:

---

Admiral Adama said:

---

LMCane said:

---

well stated

aside from a bank failure

won't this make it much more difficult for new startups to get funding and actually succeed?

bullish for the economy!

---

Yes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. If the source of that start up funding was due to unprofitable lending from a culture of grow market share, grow fast and break things, we are big tech and we'll figure out the business plan later, it shouldn't have been given out in the first place.

There's still going to be tons of venture funds that will just tell their clients to move their operating accounts to Chase.

---

It's actually a great thing and needed for the economy to actually become "real". Easy obtainable money throws the "risk/reward" equation out of whack and creates havoc in the industry, like the situation I mentioned above where bad companies can put good companies out of business because they don't care about making profit when they have billions from San Jose.

---

Or in medicine, PE/VC can just take out massive loans and buy out everyone

SWCBonfire said:

---

This says SJIM

https://www.thestreet.com/etffocus/blog/inverse-cramer-etf-is-live

---

It only started on March 1 of this year and has a ridiculous expense ratio. Will have to pass for the moment. Need more data.

Waiting for the screams next Wednesday when startups don't make mid-month payroll.

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Waiting for the screams next Wednesday when startups don't make mid-month payroll.

---

Good point.

CDUB98 said:

---

SWCBonfire said:

---

This says SJIM

https://www.thestreet.com/etffocus/blog/inverse-cramer-etf-is-live

---

It only started on March 1 of this year and has a ridiculous expense ratio. Will have to pass for the moment. Need more data.

---

I'm sure it's a joke/novelty thing, but the mere existence of a market for this sort of thing brings up either gross incompetence or active intent.

not to be the Ackchyually guy but that should read 'fully insured'
accounts are covered up to $250k under FDIC insurance. and most bank/brokers have additional coverage from majors insurance companies like Lloyds.

a reminder for us little(r) guys to consider spreading assets around to cover risk from these these types of one-off failures

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Waiting for the screams next Wednesday when startups don't make mid-month payroll.

---

back in 2008-10, the FDIC seemed to standardize this whole receivership process.
-show up on Friday AM
-shut down all outgoing transactions
-transfer ownership of accounts to a larger institution after providing some sort of FDIC and Fed-level protection
-open up accounts to customers at 'new' bank on Monday

But I'm not we had a pure bank (not brokers like Bear or Lehman) of this size fail back then. Wachovia maybe but i think that was earlier

LMCane said:

---

well stated

aside from a bank failure

won't this make it much more difficult for new startups to get funding and actually succeed?

bullish for the economy!

---

No. SVB had a small venture arm but new startup fundings generally come from venture capital firms. Once the startups received money from those VC firms they were parking it at SVB but SVB wasn't funding them itself

VC fundings are down independent of this, though (this actually caused the collapse).

CDUB98 said:

---

Wow, thank you. Gonna put that on my watchlist.

---

If the 2022 performance is any indication, you'd probably be doing well.

LOL

There has been a sentiment for about 10-15 years that it's ok to throw insane amounts of money at apps like Facebook, Snapchat, etc, based on the amount of eyeballs it makes, not the profits it produces.

If that is widespread throughout the VC industry, I could see a big course correction coming to them.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

There has been a sentiment for about 10-15 years that it's ok to throw insane amounts of money at apps like Facebook, Snapchat, etc, based on the amount of eyeballs it makes, not the profits it produces.

If that is widespread throughout the VC industry, I could see a big course correction coming to them.

---

Throwing fake money at fake data for fake profits and when the lie comes up to everyone's perception, throw money into the holes until people shut up again, repeat. That's the last 50 years off the gold standard.

UPDATES - US treasury chief voices ‘concern’ amid bank sell-offhttps://t.co/AWrH4DHmEC

— Insider Paper (@TheInsiderPaper) March 10, 2023

Too much free $$ pumped into the markets, and you need to get control of inflation?

How about making a bunch of $$ disappear?

If the Wells Fargo thing has any connection to SVB, it could be related to something like this...it could be that the WF account showed the expected direct deposit but then it disappeared when the money never made it to the account...

Ripple effects from SVB....payroll processors that used them cannot pay people...

Then again, if your company did payroll through Rippling (which uses SVB), you're not getting paid this weekhttps://t.co/ohxVi4YZFB

— Aaron Stannard (@Aaronontheweb) March 10, 2023

My post to our employees. This is dumpster fire. From regulators to SV investors doing nothing to bailout their companies from breaching contracts. pic.twitter.com/ye8W8AkNaq

— Alex Meshkin, GED (@alexmeshkin) March 10, 2023

we still have some of that covid money to spend
https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/

too bad debt service or retirement of unused commitments isnt considered an 'emergency'

Kansas Kid said:

---

The key bank to watch is Credit Suisse. SVB is too small by itself to cause a repeat of 08 but CS has some serious problems and is a too big to fail type of firm in the global economy

This is the issue with zero interest rates for 12 years and Obama and Trump both pushed for it. Trump even wanted the negative rates from the Fed that the Europeans had. It felt great if you had money invested in stocks, bonds or real estate while it lasted but it was like a drug addiction causing a bubble in all assets. Getting out of the everything bubble caused by that and the massive stimulus money is going to be painful for a lot of people.

---

It's the same story with everyone, nobody wants to be the one who gets blamed when the jukebox stops, whether we've got quarters or not.

It's going to cause massive pain to correct the ship; no one wants that, regardless of how bad they need it, so they vote for kicking the can, that's why both parties embrace kicking the can.

ChiefKiefton said:

---

Would this affect banks like Wells Fargo? My account went to zero this morning and it seems to be happening to a lot of people.

---

My son checking account is currently -1700. His savings is fine

Party like its 2008.

Apologies to Prince fans.

Damn!

NYPD called to Silicon Valley Bank branch as depositors attempt to pull cash: report

@dailyrealtimenews https://t.co/s2tdUgnp5U

— The Real Johnald (@SavageDystrophy) March 10, 2023

tysker said:

---

Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Waiting for the screams next Wednesday when startups don't make mid-month payroll.

---

back in 2008-10, the FDIC seemed to standardize this whole receivership process.
-show up on Friday AM
-shut down all outgoing transactions
-transfer ownership of accounts to a larger institution after providing some sort of FDIC and Fed-level protection
-open up accounts to customers at 'new' bank on Monday

But I'm not we had a pure bank (not brokers like Bear or Lehman) of this size fail back then. Wachovia maybe but i think that was earlier

---

I remember at the time "60 Minutes" did a piece on the FDIC taking over a bank with a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff. It wasn't an industry-specific bank like SVB appears to be but just a standard neighborhood bank where local residents and businesses had their checking and savings accounts.

All the FDIC people went to the same hotel under an alias company name to not draw attention. They spent a day or two planning. They had already found another bank to take over the assets of the failed bank.

They marched into the bank and broke the news to the president. They then met with bank employees to hold their hands. Told them they were now FDIC employees, would still be getting a paycheck, and they would not lose vacation time. Now obviously that was not permanent, but they employees were not immediately thrown out on the street.

The next day when the bank opened, FDIC people were still there to console the customers. Yes, your money is still there. Yes, you can still keep using the same checks.

One old guy came marching in with a briefcase, intending to pull all his cash out. Which was his right. His wife though he was overreacting and couldn't convince him otherwise. Typical old-couple bickering. Husband is on a determined course of action and refuses to listen to anyone, wife is all distraught. One of the FDIC guys calmed him down, and he left without emptying his account.

Lmao

A mostly peaceful run on the bank?