And not a damn thing will be done about it.aggielostinETX said:
This is not the beginning of 2009 again.
But you are about to see how corrupt are California legislators.
We shall see, thanks for the response.bmks270 said:richardag said:Federal Bailout using the American Tax payers as collateral (re: more correctly we are the hostages of corrupt POS in the Federal Government}will25u said:I’m working with my CA colleagues to address the Silicon Valley Bank crisis. We must make sure all deposits exceeding the FDIC $250k limit are honored. Banking is about confidence. If depositors lose confidence on the safety of their deposits over 250k then we are in trouble.
— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) March 10, 2023
The "bailout" would be to the bank customers who can't access their money. These are businesses that have to pay employees and pay bills. Not the bank owners.
If the funds can't be freed up to the businesses then there will be huge turmoil and many out of work. A big loss of new innovation and cutting edge technology as well.
Something like over 60,000 businesses used this bank.
It's been reported that the banks assets exceed their deposit liabilities, so if those assets get sold off, the depositors should be made whole without needing any government money. The FDIC is facilitating the asset transfer/liquidation so depositors can get their funds.
aggie93 said:
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.Who the hell was in charge of risk management at SVB and what the hell were they focused on???
— Comfortably Smug (@ComfortablySmug) March 11, 2023
Oh pic.twitter.com/xdkzjqRPmc
Yup, the whole game is setup on eventually interest rates decreasing over time as to keep reissuing bonds. Eventually this game ends. The periodic function of rising and falling interest rates gets more and more frequent. Going to be interesting when that periodic function is no longer feasible. What then?Dies Irae said:Absolutely it is, money used to be not quite free but extremely cheap to get; to make things very simple; if you wanted to borrow $1,000,000 at 2.5% interest; you had to pay $25,000 of interest per year; $2k/mo not bad. Now fast forward to current times, and you have to pay 7% or so; and the amount of interest you have to pay jumps up to $5,800/mo.outofstateaggie said:Htownag11 said:Different than Enron, but I think SVB is just as toast. Enron was deliberately fraudulent.outofstateaggie said:
Saw this yesterday. People were making comparisons to Enron. No idea if those companions were valid or not. Lots of money being moved for sure.
SVB seems to have made some bad/aggressive loans, has a huge portfolio of treasuries/bonds/MBS on their balance sheet at historically low interest rates that are worth less today because market interest rates have risen, and is being forced to liquidate those impaired assets because of growing deposit redemptions.
Because they were intended to be held to maturity, SVB wasn't required to "mark to market" those impaired assets, until now, that is, when they are being liquidated.
The big banks have the same issue with large holdings of debt securities that are impaired but aren't marked as such because they are classified as HTM.
This just popped up on my Instagram feed. They're listening.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cpi-VjkAo7a/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Is this accurate or relevant to this situation?
That's the issue a lot of these companies have with their bonds. The bonds they're issuing to repay the previous bonds are costing them 3x as much interest, and they're now buried under debt servicing.
That's actually a thing.Nanomachines son said:One month ago, Jim Cramer urged investors to buy Silicon Valley Bank stock $SIVB, saying it was "still cheap" and has "room to run."
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) March 10, 2023
The stock's value has since dropped by 66% following concerns that the bank is on the brink of collapsing. pic.twitter.com/5jgjqTGxld
This guy is so consistently wrong that you can make lots of money betting the opposite of what he says.
Well, that's a horrifying thought. If the FDIC is running a ponzi scheme, we're all ****ed.ac04 said:
the whole thing is fake. no banks actually have the money that the numbers on the screen indicate
Yep. In "Millionaire" for instance one of the main principles they found was a common trait among wealthy individuals was living below your means. It was less material how much you made, only that you always lived at least slightly below those means. There are 2 methods to achieve this. One is to be a budget focused person that watches every dollar. The second is a "pay yourself first" model where you treat investing like a bill that must be paid the same as rent.UTExan said:
The most difficult part of getting people to grow their wealth is to train them into self-discipline: that they don't "need" a yearly family vacation to Mexico or Hawaii or they don't "need" to eat out 5 times a week when they can pack a lunch is a difficult concept. My wife and I came from cash-strapped backgrounds and determined we would be savers and investors, not victims of "needing" the costly diversions offered by consumer society. Indeed, our "treat" was a weekly date at our favorite restaurant. By the time we reached retirement age, the money was there to do what we wished: cruises, traveling to Mexico twice a year, European vacations, trips to the Middle East, giving generously to our favorite charities, etc with the money being replenished by investment income. And we don't feel we sacrificed anything in the process.
Everything is built on levels of trust in the system. That said saying FDIC is a ponzi scheme isn't accurate because it will insure your money to $250k. The problem is if you have $50 million in assets in that bank. Also the fundamentals of value in the companies are still there for the most part. Some will be exposed and go to zero. Some will lose significant value. Others will come in and benefit from the ability to buy on the cheap and invest long term.TxAgswin said:Well, that's a horrifying thought. If the FDIC is running a ponzi scheme, we're all ****ed.ac04 said:
the whole thing is fake. no banks actually have the money that the numbers on the screen indicate
Billy Ray Valentine said it best...fka ftc said:
Simplest way I can understand derivatives is that they are simply a bet of something happening in the future, same as you would book in a casino on a sports game.
If bets start coming in all for one outcome, odds of that outcome happening seem more likely and the bets pay out less. You can also trade these outstanding bets further convoluting the whole thing.
Derivative literally means the value is "derived" by x happening (sometimes by y date, sometimes at z price, sometimes both).
I am sure none of that helps anyone else, but it helps me.
What I’m hearing via my #SVBwarroom
— Mike Moïse (@mavidormike) March 11, 2023
1/ FDIC has sold ~ half of SVB's assets.
SVB's customers will have $250k unfrozen on Monday, and ~50% of the remaining balance dividended to depositers within 1-2 days of Monday (money market accounts likely to get 100%).
The best data-driven take on #svb that I've seen (thanks CW) -- TLDR: all deposit holders should be made whole...
— Uri Pomerantz (@uripomerantz) March 11, 2023
As mentioned, we think the deposits on balance sheet are very likely to see 100% recovery. One positive aspect of the SVB balance sheet is that such a high % of… https://t.co/6l4eids7iA
Not really sure who this guy is, but considering how much we have been lied to over the last couple of years I really have a hard time believing him. I think that he is blowing smoke while trying to put lipstick on this pig.bmks270 said:The best data-driven take on #svb that I've seen (thanks CW) -- TLDR: all deposit holders should be made whole...
— Uri Pomerantz (@uripomerantz) March 11, 2023
As mentioned, we think the deposits on balance sheet are very likely to see 100% recovery. One positive aspect of the SVB balance sheet is that such a high % of… https://t.co/6l4eids7iA
Fair points.aggie93 said:Everything is built on levels of trust in the system. That said saying FDIC is a ponzi scheme isn't accurate because it will insure your money to $250k. The problem is if you have $50 million in assets in that bank. Also the fundamentals of value in the companies are still there for the most part. Some will be exposed and go to zero. Some will lose significant value. Others will come in and benefit from the ability to buy on the cheap and invest long term.TxAgswin said:Well, that's a horrifying thought. If the FDIC is running a ponzi scheme, we're all ****ed.ac04 said:
the whole thing is fake. no banks actually have the money that the numbers on the screen indicate
The US is still by far the best place in the world to invest and that drives everything.
Stat Monitor Repairman said:
So what happens on Monday?
Predictions?
What's the trickle down. What don't we know about?
From a source I trust: @SVB_Financial depositors will get ~50% on Mon/Tues and the balance based on realized value over the next 3-6 months. If this proves true, I expect there will be bank runs beginning Monday am at a large number of non-SIB banks. No company will take even a… https://t.co/2BoqtCDKJt
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) March 11, 2023
he is a complete clown who pumps different stocks by interviewing their CEOs and lobbing softball questionsNanomachines son said:One month ago, Jim Cramer urged investors to buy Silicon Valley Bank stock $SIVB, saying it was "still cheap" and has "room to run."
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) March 10, 2023
The stock's value has since dropped by 66% following concerns that the bank is on the brink of collapsing. pic.twitter.com/5jgjqTGxld
This guy is so consistently wrong that you can make lots of money betting the opposite of what he says.
LOL at you thinking the USA is going to be well set up 40 years from now!cone said:i hope he's got the stomach for the fightQuote:
I think Powell has come to the realization that he must become the Batman for the markets.
he's got the chance/opportunity to set up the US for the next 40 years
How should the government treat uninsured depositors after a bank run?
— Nick Timiraos (@NickTimiraos) March 11, 2023
It's a question Jay Powell faced as an assistant Treasury secretary in January 1991, and it's recounted in my book (which is worth reading if you're interested in how Powell operates) https://t.co/zYOlqHwoSK pic.twitter.com/zyns06prtH
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.
I definitely remember Trump yelling at the Fed Reserve to lower ratesKansas 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.
very interestingbmks270 said:
Reports of lines at First Republic bank today.
It's another start up centric bank.
I guess fear is already spreading.