Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	i'm waiting
Date:	3/13/2023 8:57:31 AM

for joey's next speech telling us how great the economy is

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	i'm waiting
Date:	3/13/2023 10:17:10 AM

He's waiting for instructions from his ChiCom handler Wi Screw Yu.  Currently they are focused on making sure he prevents the banning of Tik Tok so the ChiCom's can work on the Dem party's behalf in 2024.  They'll get him instructions on what to do and say about the economy when he gets up from his third nap on his 350th vacation to Delaware since becomong POTUS.  Just be patient.

Meanwhile, they are really in a pickle as to whether they bail out Silicon Valley Bank depositers.  Lots of Dem bundlers in the customer list that will lose billions of deposits.....at least the ones not smart enough to pull their money out.  Which of course led to their failing.  Yu will let them know what to do another day.  It's hard work running the USA via blind drops and burner phones.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	i'm waiting
Date:	3/13/2023 11:18:36 AM

It's coming.  Last week he said he felt very optimisist in light of a good jobs report.  The man lives in a parallel universe where everything is rosy.  I read something this weekend - his Press Secretary, in a word salad remark - claimed that the last Adminitration "destroyed" the immigration system in this country  = and they are going to fix it with "something safe".  Now if you can think of anything rosy about the economy or the immigration situation, you have to be living in a parallel universe.  

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	i'm waiting
Date:	3/13/2023 1:35:00 PM

I am actually torn as to whether he knows what is going on and chooses to blatantly lie or he is actually that delusional and out of touch with reality. The charitable option is the former but I am thinking it may be a matter of him being completely detached from the facts on the ground due to his dementia and the information being fed to him by his handlers.  He keeps saying his economic plan is "working" and that in fact may be true.  But by working it is devastating to ordinary Americans.

SVB is the largest bank to fail since the 2008 crisis and the second largest in our history.  What is coming out now is that SVB was more interested in DEI and ESG than they were in making good business decisions.  Get woke and go broke happens once again. So they are claiming they are not going to bail out this bank but are offering any bank that buys them loans on favorable terms to make the depositors whole.  Maybe it's just me but that sounds like a bailout.  That's what they did in 2008-2009 and the banks had to pay them back.  Those were clearly called a bailout.  But this may be one place where the Federal govt has a role.  Last thing we need is a run on banks by retail customers who are covered by insurance up to $250K anyway.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	i'm waiting
Date:	3/13/2023 1:44:06 PM

But tell me about that 250,000 FDIC insurance.  I always thought "hey it is great that the govt has this covered".  But do they have it covered as in an insurance policy OR just more money coming from the taxpayer?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	i'm waiting
Date:	3/13/2023 3:06:25 PM (updated 3/13/2023 3:07:50 PM)

As I understand it FDIC is actual insurance that is paid for by financial institutions in the form of policy premiums.  But I can assure you the FDIC fund doesn't have enough to cover SVB losses let alone a slew of other banks that will likely fail in the coming months.  It used to only cover $100,000 in deposits but that was increased to $250K during the 2008 banking crisis. So it will likely be a combination of FDIC insurance and low-cost loans from the Fed (the bailout part).

What happened here is a direct result of inflation and the Fed's rate hikes to combat it.  SVB, along with probably pretty much every bank, based its investment strategy on cheap money.  As that money has gotten more expensive it has cratered their investments.  So even if the Feds bail out SVB the investors in the bank will still get screwed.  And rightly so.  If you are crazy enough to invest in a woke bank that ignores sound business practices in favor of DEI and ESG you will go down the drain with them.  SVB ran into a problem with Moody's who threatened to downgrade them.  In response they sold $20B in bonds at a loss of $1.8B to bloster liquidity which is what triggered the massive outflows of cash that cratered the bank.  Smart people recognized a sinking ship and acted quickly.....the rest will be bailed out by the Fed, you can be sure of that.

It's time to dust off the impending doom graph and update the x-axis to current years.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	i'm waiting
Date:	3/14/2023 2:00:41 AM

It has nothing to do with a Woke bank. Their cliental consisted of tech startups which is capitalism at work.

Here is a good explanation from FOX business. Basically, they invested their deposits in long term bonds at low interest rates. When rates increased the value ofthe bonds went down since no one would but a bond that paid 1% interest when a new bond was paying 3.50%. When depositors wanted their money the bank had to sell the bonds at  a loss.

Antoni explained that the bank "dealt almost exclusively with tech firms which usually rely on continuously rolling over large debts" which means that the firms are "not paying off their debt but simply taking out new debt to pay off the old."

"Second, SVB put a disproportionate amount of its cash into long-term bonds. Ordinarily, that’s not a bad strategy, but it’s unwise when interest rates are zero because those rates must rise eventually," Antoni said. "When rates rise, bond prices fall. This is because an investor with the choice to buy an existing bond at a low rate or a new bond at a high rate will choose the new bond since it’s a better return on investment. If you want to sell the old bond with its lower interest rate, you must be willing to sell it at a discount; otherwise, no one will buy it."

Antoni explained that SVB's undiversified clientele meant "too many depositors needed cash all at once" forcing the liquidation of bonds that had lost value and a "death spiral" quickly ensued.

"SVB had to sell its bonds at a loss to raise cash," Antoni said. "Limited transactions like this would not have been catastrophic, and in fact happen regularly in the financial sector on a small scale."

"SVB was a case of mismanagement that was made possible by the unrealistically low rates from the Federal Reserve," Antoni told FOX Business. 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You simply do not understand...no surprise
Date:	3/14/2023 8:19:07 AM

Goofy, you are nothing if not predictable.  Predictably wrong and economically illiterate.  Every single bank did the same thing with bonds....every one of them.  So how come Moody's picked on SVB instead of every other bank that was long on bonds?  Answer, because the other banks didn't make foolish investments and loans based on ESG and DEI (which SVB constantly bragged about), didn't get notice that their rating was going to be downgraded and weren't forced to sell their bonds at a loss.  SVB did because they made crappy loans and investments that hurt their credit rating.  The bond issue is a symptom, not a cause.  If you can hold onto bonds until they mature you not only get the interest income but you get all the principal back.  If you are forced to sell bonds to raise capital at a time when interest rates are up and bond values are down then you will take a loss.

So SVB was forced to sell bonds at a loss to raise capital to try to hold off a downgrade of their credit rating by Moody's due to their lousy woke business decisions resulting in a run on the bank that sent them into bankruptcy.  Go woke, go broke..... 

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	You simply do not understand...no surprise
Date:	3/14/2023 8:59:12 AM (updated 3/14/2023 9:19:12 AM)

Interesting names poping up regarding the two bank shutdowns

from politico

"Frank, who chaired the House Financial Services Committee in the wake of the global financial crisis and wrote sweeping new rules enacted in 2010, most recently served on the board of New York’s Signature Bank, which regulators shut down Sunday."

From Bloomberg News

"SVB Financial Group Chief Executive Officer Greg Becker is no longer a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, according to a Fed spokesman."

and found this as well 

DEVELOPING: Fed Reserve Bank of SF that missed massive red flags @ SV Bank run by openly gay diversity quota & Janet Yellen protege Mary Daly who focused more on "climate change and inequities" than regulating rogue banks like SVB. Also chairs SF Fed Diversity & Inclusion Council

So a Director of the Fedreal Reserve Bank who was CEO of SVB - had his bank taken from him, and Barney Frank of Dodd-Frank, Fannie and Freddie infamy was a chair at the other.  You would think two people who had such extensive "knowledge" of banking would not make such stupid decisions that would cause such havoc in the banking industry.  but on the other hand who in the right mind would allow Barney Frank near a bank, a mortgage or any banking decision!!!!!!!

and to possibly add to such a list - the protege of the current secretary of the treasury and the chair of the SF FED Diversity & Inclusion Council.  You would think these people know enough to keep a bank from being taken over by the FED!

Is it to much to ask that people are qualified? Next thing someone will tell me is that a crossdresser who is charge of our spent nuclear fuel has been caught stealing ladies luggage on multiple occasions.... what is this world coming to when we hire based on things other the actual qualifications!!!?!?!?!??!  

To hell with this planet/mankind - I pray for Global warming or a extinction level meteor to just go ahead and end this disaster.  Humanity does not deserve to survive at the rate we are going!