A Pittsburgh Penguins Hockey Message Board
http://fifthavenueforum.com/forum/
Ah ah ah. He is blessed enough to represent me. I voted for him anyway.Dude seems to deserve better than having to represent you.lolololol. He is my Rep. He lives like 1/3 mile from meExplain to me what is going on like I'm 5 years old.
lolololol. He is my Rep. He lives like 1/3 mile from me
Tell me how to get richOnce in a lifetime buying opportunities in the banking sector today...
Executives responsible for this **** should be banned from the industry and BoD positions. The risk management **** ups would have to omit their tenure from their resume to find another job. Executives always get golden parachutes of varying degrees of **** you money and, after enough time has passed to remove their name from the headlines, pity **** Board positions.I do disagree that this isn't a bailout for the bank executives. Knowing that they can **** up as hard as they want and get to hit the reset button is a bailout, if not in the direct financial sense.
There is $128bn in the Feds insurance fund.Yeah. Had no idea this wasn't being taxpayer funded.
Unless you're a broke millennial going through the second financial crisis in your adult life before even turning 40Once in a lifetime buying opportunities in the banking sector today...
PNC, Truist, Bank of America, and US Bancorp are at 52 week lows today for basically no reason.Tell me how to get richOnce in a lifetime buying opportunities in the banking sector today...
My first inclination was to blame the risk management folks. But, talked to my client today, this seems like business model idiocy, and why creating a bank to cater to start ups is stupid. From what I can tell, their risk was their proportion of non-FDIC insured deposits. All banks are taking hits from the treasury bond prices, but this idiotic bank was uniquely vulnerable to a run due to their clientele.Executives responsible for this **** should be banned from the industry and BoD positions. The risk management **** ups would have to omit their tenure from their resume to find another job. Executives always get golden parachutes of varying degrees of **** you money and, after enough time has passed to remove their name from the headlines, pity **** Board positions.I do disagree that this isn't a bailout for the bank executives. Knowing that they can **** up as hard as they want and get to hit the reset button is a bailout, if not in the direct financial sense.
Isn't that where regulation comes into play? Sounds like they set themselves up for failure.
My first inclination was to blame the risk management folks. But, talked to my client today, this seems like business model idiocy, and why creating a bank to cater to start ups is stupid. From what I can tell, their risk was their proportion of non-FDIC insured deposits. All banks are taking hits from the treasury bond prices, but this idiotic bank was uniquely vulnerable to a run due to their clientele.
That's a good question I guess. Looks like this Trump regulatory roll back from 2018 removed stress testing requirements for banks under $250B in assets (SVB). Not sure what happens if a stress tell your regional bank that is vulnerable to a bank run, like, does that mandate something?Isn't that where regulation comes into play? Sounds like they set themselves up for failure.
My first inclination was to blame the risk management folks. But, talked to my client today, this seems like business model idiocy, and why creating a bank to cater to start ups is stupid. From what I can tell, their risk was their proportion of non-FDIC insured deposits. All banks are taking hits from the treasury bond prices, but this idiotic bank was uniquely vulnerable to a run due to their clientele.
See, Fed's faultPer Matt Levine of Bloomberg:
As the bank for start-ups, which have a lot of cash from investors and the initial public offering of stock, SVB had lots of deposits. But start-up companies don’t need much in the way of loans because they’ve just gotten so much cash and they don’t yet have fixed assets. So, rather than balancing deposits with loans that fluctuate with interest rates and thus keep a bank on an even keel, SVB’s directors took a gamble that the Federal Reserve would not raise interest rates. They invested in long-term Treasury bonds that paid better interest rates than short-term securities. But when, in fact, interest rates went up, the value of those long-term bonds sank.
You see, it's the Fed's fault for what the bank invested in.
Because it seems to me like the 2018 (bipartisan) regulation change is just a hindsight is 20/20 thing.
This is the big one where the rule change contributed to the collapseIncreasing the asset threshold for “systemically important financial institutions” or, “SIFIs,” from $50 billion to $250 billion.
Because it seems to me like the 2018 (bipartisan) regulation change is just a hindsight is 20/20 thing.
It's the fed's fault dude. They're like drug dealers preying on your children to get addicted to low rates.Because it seems to me like the 2018 (bipartisan) regulation change is just a hindsight is 20/20 thing.
It's probably not THE issue, but let's not act like it didn't contribute to the situation.