March 13, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, DrPhilly said: The conditions in the world are different now but this fundamental aspect is exactly the same as it was in the 1st dot com crash back in 2000/2001. One other thing that - in part - led to that crash was the emergence of online trading platforms that made it easy for people who didn't know what they were doing to invest. Everyone was looking for the next hot IPO and were swiftly tossing cash around without looking at any fundamentals. IMO I think you can see this phenomenon mirrored prior to 1929 when brokers started to become more accessible - and again recently with "fractional" outfits like robinhood that basically became gambling sites for people with wallstreetbets bookmarked in their browser.
March 13, 20232 yr 12 hours ago, The_Omega said: How paranoid would one appear if they moved some money earning a higher interest rate at Wells Fargo to an account earning a lesser rate at a local bank to keep both under the FDIC limit? Asking for a friend. You can have multiple accounts at the same bank I'm pretty sure. The limit is per account. Edit: nevermind it's per account TYPE. Multiple savings accounts only one per institution.
March 13, 20232 yr 3 minutes ago, Arthur Jackson said: One other thing that - in part - led to that crash was the emergence of online trading platforms that made it easy for people who didn't know what they were doing to invest. Everyone was looking for the next hot IPO and were swiftly tossing cash around without looking at any fundamentals. IMO I think you can see this phenomenon mirrored prior to 1929 when brokers started to become more accessible - and again recently with "fractional" outfits like robinhood that basically became gambling sites for people with wallstreetbets bookmarked in their browser. Kennedy's shoeshine boy
March 13, 20232 yr @JohnSnowsHair FYI you're using a banned term (like "the whole enchilada", "blackbody radiation", and "socratic")
March 13, 20232 yr I hope this banking failure isn't part of a much larger problem which will cause Big Banks to start failing.
March 13, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said: You can have multiple accounts at the same bank I'm pretty sure. The limit is per account. Edit: nevermind it's per account TYPE. Multiple savings accounts only one per institution. Yup.
March 13, 20232 yr 4 minutes ago, The_Omega said: Yup. Yeah I'd split it between banks. I don't think that's faulty reasoning. (Not financial advice and I'd suggest not listening to me on financial advice anyway, but..) The only thing I'd say is that even with improved savings rates I don't know if I'd keep that much just in savings. 10 year note is around 4% if you're looking for a safe place to park, though I still think the stock market indexes outperform the next decade. Depends on risk tolerance. If you resemble this guy maybe the T-bill makes sense. 👴
March 13, 20232 yr Bernies take. 1.1k Cheryl Teh Sun, March 12, 2023 at 11:51 PM CDT Former President Donald Trump and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.Allison Joyce and Win McNamee/Getty Images Sen. Bernie Sanders is blaming a Trump-era policy for the Silicon Valley Bank run. Sanders said the 2018 law deregulated the industry and sowed the seeds for the bank's failure. Sanders said the 2018 law needs to be repealed to "break up too big to fail banks." Sen. Bernie Sanders has blamed a Trump-era banking law for the Silicon Valley Bank's failure. "Let's be clear. The failure of Silicon Valley Bank is a direct result of an absurd 2018 bank deregulation bill signed by Donald Trump that I strongly opposed," Sanders wrote in a statement on Sunday. Sanders was referring to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which former President Donald Trump signed into law in May 2018.
March 13, 20232 yr 5 hours ago, jsdarkstar said: Bernies take. 1.1k Cheryl Teh Sun, March 12, 2023 at 11:51 PM CDT Former President Donald Trump and Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.Allison Joyce and Win McNamee/Getty Images Sen. Bernie Sanders is blaming a Trump-era policy for the Silicon Valley Bank run. Sanders said the 2018 law deregulated the industry and sowed the seeds for the bank's failure. Sanders said the 2018 law needs to be repealed to "break up too big to fail banks." Sen. Bernie Sanders has blamed a Trump-era banking law for the Silicon Valley Bank's failure. "Let's be clear. The failure of Silicon Valley Bank is a direct result of an absurd 2018 bank deregulation bill signed by Donald Trump that I strongly opposed," Sanders wrote in a statement on Sunday. Sanders was referring to the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, which former President Donald Trump signed into law in May 2018. Trump is partly to blame. So is Biden. So is 0bama. So is every big spending politician (Bernie) that drove US into the inflationary spiral that we’re in.
March 13, 20232 yr 3 hours ago, The_Omega said: Trump is partly to blame. So is Biden. So is 0bama. So is every big spending politician (Bernie) that drove US into the inflationary spiral that we’re in
March 13, 20232 yr 2 hours ago, The_Omega said: Trump is partly to blame. So is Biden. So is 0bama. So is every big spending politician (Bernie) that drove US into the inflationary spiral that we’re in. So .. what about the bank itself? No blame there?
March 13, 20232 yr 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: So .. what about the bank itself? No blame there? If you say so. I was responding to a specific claim made by a specific hack. There's plenty more blame to go around. Including the blame for all of US for enabling it for so long.
March 13, 20232 yr Quote https://www.facebook.com/100052170737663/posts/pfbid0NKbNarL7jQVyswaxZN9JDcPgZNhaVGSbD95JDEvs4K4UQoc8TKVo2E52mQbSezGzl/?mibextid=Nif5oz Why did Silicon Valley Bank fail, what is happening to the people who had deposits in the bank, and what does this mean for the economy? I'll explain. For those who don't know, SVB was a premiere bank for startup businesses, especially tech startups. It had over $200 billion in assets, and was the 14th largest lender in the US, before it failed. Forbes listed SVB as of America's Best Banks for 2023, and Jim Cramer had advised people to buy stock in SVB a matter of days ago. If you started up a new tech company, SVB was probably where you'd bank. And there was a boom in startups from 2020 to 2022, thanks to low Federal Reserve interest rates and lots of free "stimulus" money being thrown around by the government. SVB's deposits went from $60 billion in 2019 to nearly $200 billion in 2022. SVB wanted a "safe" place to invest all of this money that was coming in, so they bought $80 billion worth of Mortgage Backed Securities, which had a yield of 1.5%. With startups booming and Fed rates at or near 0%, a 1.5% return was a pretty good deal. This is called malinvestment. It's what happens when the Fed is handing out money like candy. And here's what happens to malinvestment: As inflation went through the roof, the Fed started raising their rate to cool off all the lending. Suddenly, 1.5% wasn't a good return. With each increase of the Fed rate, SVB lost billions. And as inflation and Fed rate increases caused the economy to cool down, startups were making, and depositing, less and less money. To try to free up some sorely-needed assets, SVB announced that they were selling some of their stocks, at a loss. Investors panicked at the news, and SVB's shares fell by nearly 70%. With the sale of shares failing miserably, SVB announced that it was now going to sell the entire bank. At this point, major venture capitalists and financial pundits were publicly advising everyone to get their money out of SVB. This sparked a run on the bank, which led to it being shut down. That's what happens to malinvestment. That was on Friday, and everyone was hoping over the weekend that this problem was contained and specific to just this one bank. Then on Sunday, Signature Bank shut down too. Signature Bank is not known as a tech startup bank. It catered primarily to large businesses in big cities. And since FDIC only insures the first $250,000 in an account, many of those big businesses started pulling their money out, causing Signature to implode. So in order to try to stop more banks from following, the government announced earlier today that it was backing the full deposits of all anyone with money deposited in SVB or Signature, and that executives and investors would get nothing. So, a bailout for people who used the bank, but not the people who owned them. There's only one problem: That doesn't stop what caused these banks to fail. The economy is steadily heading into a recession, and inflation is still through the roof. If the Fed lowers rates to try to save the banks, inflation will go even higher, so doing that would make things even worse. So no matter what, banks are losing money, by the billions. The 2nd and 3rd largest bank failures in US history aren't an isolated incident, so I don't be surprised to see more failures in the coming days and weeks. These endless boom/bust cycles will continue as long as government controls money, and hands it out to its buddies at our expense. End the Fed. End corporate welfare. Get the government out of banking.
March 13, 20232 yr Interesting, so the SVB bank had aligned itself with alternative energy as a good investment, and Republicans like Peter Theil didn't like that, and withdrew $10 Billion dollars before the bank collapsed. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-09/founders-fund-advises-companies-to-withdraw-money-from-svb Peter Thiel's Founders Fund got its cash out of Silicon Valley Bank before it was shut down, report says
March 14, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, The_Omega said: If you say so. I was responding to a specific claim made by a specific hack. There's plenty more blame to go around. Including the blame for all of US for enabling it for so long. oddly collectivist sentiment. a relatively small bank ($150B) failed because it made poor financial choices. it wouldn't be very big news except that it's called Silicon Valley bank so it can be made political. on all sides.
March 14, 20232 yr 16 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said: oddly collectivist sentiment. a relatively small bank ($150B) failed because it made poor financial choices. it wouldn't be very big news except that it's called Silicon Valley bank so it can be made political. on all sides. 16th largest bank in the country. Hardly "relatively small ". Sure, they made bad choices, but there’s no denying that the higher interest rates, needed to fight the inflation that’s being caused, in large part, by out-of-control government spending has also played a major role. What’s odd is the refusal by many to recognize the part that their lousy parties and politicians have played in this. Actually, that’s not odd, it’s expected, and it’s why it’ll likely continue to happen, over, and over, and over again.
March 14, 20232 yr Let's keep in mind that these same Fsticks were around for 2008. They're gonna get it right this time.....
March 14, 20232 yr 1 hour ago, iladelphxx said: The economy is steadily heading into a recession By what metric?
Create an account or sign in to comment