SBV collapse.

[Screw_Michigan]

Yeah, bail out a bunch of rich assholes but how DARE Jimmy or Johnny failed student get $20k of student loans forgiven? FUCK THEM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-polic ... -deposits/

[Sudden Sam]

So, once again, we see these “marginalized” people spending their time and energy worrying about their sex life and the sex lives of like-minded folks rather than doing their goddamn job.

Fuck whatever adult you want. No one cares. STFU and do your job.

“Choosing leaders for the color of their skin or their sexual orientation, and not the content of their capabilities, demeans and debases them. It renders their achievements suspect and their positions less trusted, for always will a whiff of nepotistic stink accrue to them.”

[Kierland]

You are right picking all these people because of their skin color is killing our country.

[Donnie Baker's Ghost]

The King of Whatabout doing what he does.

[Bill in Houston]

Of course the tax isn’t the risk, dumbfukk. It is a reduction of the reward for taking the risk and therefore, it will affect investor’s decision on how much to risk or whether they should even bother.

Millions of Americans who hold trillions of dollars in retirement accounts invest those assets in stocks. Many of them don’t even know what the tax rate will ultimately be on their distribution.

This says what about your theory?

[Kierland]

The King of Whatabout doing what he does.

I was agreeing with him. That’s not Whataboutism, but you hate education so there is that.

[Donnie Baker's Ghost]

The King of Whatabout doing what he does.

I was agreeing with him. That’s not Whataboutism, but you hate education so there is that.

And now with a fallacy. I get it, you just can't help yourself. It's in your firmware.

[Kierland]

And what fallacy was that?

[Meat Head]

Anyone hip to this site? I mean if you want the top shelf lingo and analysis..

https://wolfstreet.com/

Seems a bunch of top shelf sensationalist trendy bullshit.

Wolf Richter may be a next generation bot.

As usual, Meat Suck (aka, Mikey), you have no idea what you're reflexively attempting to trash. Perhaps you're more comfortable wallowing in the wisdom of this guy--and why wasn't he jailed back in '08? :o




CNBC analyst Jim Cramer is once again being pilloried on social media after a clip resurfaced showing the “Mad Money” host recommending viewers buy shares of Silicon Valley Bank’s parent company, which owns the tech-driven commercial lender that swiftly collapsed on Friday.

“The ninth-best performer to date has been SVB Financial (the bank’s parent company). Don’t yawn,” Cramer told viewers during a Feb. 8 episode of “Mad Money.”

Cramer listed SVB Financial among his “biggest winners of 2023 … so far” alongside blue-chip stocks such as Meta, Tesla, Warner Bros. Discovery, and Norwegian Cruise Line.

“This company is a merchant bank with a deposit base that Wall Street has mistakenly been concerned by,” Cramer said in the clip.

WhatAbout Cramer? He's been an idiot for years, pandering to wanna be investors. Please stay on subject.

[LTS TRN 2]

Obviously Wolf Richter is infinitely more asute and informed about the market issues--especially in Silicon Valley--but since you're such a simplistic and clueless boring old fart, it appears that someone like Cramer is much more your speed. Try to stay awake. :wink:

[Kierland]

And what fallacy was that?

That by taxing only the rich, we can make 30 fukking trillion in debt, go bye bye.

That fallacy you imbecile.

Not how fallacies work.

[smackaholic]

Apparently, they bought a large chunk of US bonds….

They have to, that’s how banking works.

You're back on the ignore list. I can't handle your fixation for being the alpha male all the time. You have to be right even when you're wrong and when challenged you double down on stupid. It's exhausting.
[/quote]

As I was saying last week, I've never used the ignore feature because as Nish said, "A board NEEDS its tards", but damn, he really does stretch that rule to its limits. I think I may just have to do the same, for the reasons you state. He absolutely refuses to debate a topic like an adult.

[smackaholic]

This is in the *DOOM* thread.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=50281&start=2680


And btw, it is SVB -- check your thread title.

SBV is their stock ticker, apparently.

Silicon Valley Bank’s ticker is SIVB.

I don’t believe it would be very difficult for you to be correct, rather than stupid.

I stand corrected then. I did see it listed somewhere as SBV with the explnation that that was its ticker.

[smackaholic]

Yeah, bail out a bunch of rich assholes but how DARE Jimmy or Johnny failed student get $20k of student loans forgiven? FUCK THEM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-polic ... -deposits/

That's what your master Sleepy Joe did. Or are you gonna figure out a way to pin this on Trump too.

He did it because the overwhelming majority of those account are held by Silicon Valley tech companies. And they are your people.

So, the precedent is now set. FDIC now guarantees accounts to 250K, or maybe 250 billion, if Joe feels like it.

[smackaholic]

Of course the tax isn’t the risk, dumbfukk. It is a reduction of the reward for taking the risk and therefore, it will affect investor’s decision on how much to risk or whether they should even bother.

Millions of Americans who hold trillions of dollars in retirement accounts invest those assets in stocks. Many of them don’t even know what the tax rate will ultimately be on their distribution.

This says what about your theory?

You think all 401K money is in equities?

Is that what you are going with?

Much is, but a fair bit isn't. Many of the uber rich who don't need big returns, stuff a lot of it in T bills. And with a 40% tax, those T bills look even better.

[Kierland]

Yeah, bail out a bunch of rich assholes but how DARE Jimmy or Johnny failed student get $20k of student loans forgiven? FUCK THEM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-polic ... -deposits/

That's what your master Sleepy Joe did. Or are you gonna figure out a way to pin this on Trump too.

He did it because the overwhelming majority of those account are held by Silicon Valley tech companies. And they are your people.

So, the precedent is now set. FDIC now guarantees accounts to 250K, or maybe 250 billion, if Joe feels like it.

Dump killed Dodd-Frank which would have prevented this and now Brandon has to clean up another of Dump’s messes.

[smackaholic]

Bullshit.

Dodd/Frank wouldn't have prevented run away inflation.

That is what sunk these idiots, well, that and being fukking morons who don't know how to spread their risk around.

They simply weren't very good at picking investments and they also ran into some bad luck.

But smart investors account for bad luck. These dudes were too busy catering to the alphabet soup squad and ESG. And it bit them in the ass.

Sadly, there will be more to follow once everyone realizes what a shitstorm we are in thanks to about 15 years of pretending that free money is a good thing (a bipartisan effort, btw).

I suspect that even if we didn't have a comatose stooge at the helm, we'd have eventually hit this iceberg anyway, but he did speed it up a bit.

[Kierland]

Bullshit.

Dodd/Frank wouldn't have prevented run away inflation.

That is what sunk these idiots, well, that and being fukking morons who don't know how to spread their risk around.

They simply weren't very good at picking investments and they also ran into some bad luck.

But smart investors account for bad luck. These dudes were too busy catering to the alphabet soup squad and ESG. And it bit them in the ass.

Sadly, there will be more to follow once everyone realizes what a shitstorm we are in thanks to about 15 years of pretending that free money is a good thing (a bipartisan effort, btw).

I suspect that even if we didn't have a comatose stooge at the helm, we'd have eventually hit this iceberg anyway, but he did speed it up a bit.

So they suck at Capitalism which is what Dodd-Frank was meant to protect depositors from but it wouldn’t have helped. You can just admit you have no idea what DF did.

[trevvie]

And meanwhile here's the head of Risk Management for SVB, though it appears she was managing the lapping of pussy and fucking with strap-on plastic penises...



[/b][/size]

I'd tap that.

-Kierland

[Bill in Houston]

Of course the tax isn’t the risk, dumbfukk. It is a reduction of the reward for taking the risk and therefore, it will affect investor’s decision on how much to risk or whether they should even bother.

Millions of Americans who hold trillions of dollars in retirement accounts invest those assets in stocks. Many of them don’t even know what the tax rate will ultimately be on their distribution.

This says what about your theory?

You think all 401K money is in equities?

Is that what you are going with?

Much is, but a fair bit isn't. Many of the uber rich who don't need big returns, stuff a lot of it in T bills. And with a 40% tax, those T bills look even better.

I didn’t say all 401k money was in equities. Nice strawman attempt. Try reading what I said and address that, or not since you’re now spinning.

You’re now saying that T-bills are more attractive with a 40% tax rate? Wtf? Why?

[smackaholic]

Millions of Americans who hold trillions of dollars in retirement accounts invest those assets in stocks. Many of them don’t even know what the tax rate will ultimately be on their distribution.

This says what about your theory?

You think all 401K money is in equities?

Is that what you are going with?

Much is, but a fair bit isn't. Many of the uber rich who don't need big returns, stuff a lot of it in T bills. And with a 40% tax, those T bills look even better.

I didn’t say all 401k money was in equities. Nice strawman attempt. Try reading what I said and address that, or not since you’re now spinning.

You’re now saying that T-bills are more attractive with a 40% tax rate? Wtf? Why?

Do you even understand the definition of risk?

A T-bill gives you a GUARANTEED return. And if I'm not mistaken, they are tax free.

So, yeah, right about now, a tax free 5% might be looking pretty good compared to putting your money at risk in say, something like SVB stock where it might vanish.

Risk/reward calculations change when it becomes risk/60% of reward.

What is so hard to understand here?

[Screw_Michigan]

I'd tap that.

-Kierland

I would too, she's hot. You meanwhile remain a fugly miserable POS.

[Kierland]

As I was saying last week, I've never used the ignore feature because as Nish said, "A board NEEDS its tards", but damn, he really does stretch that rule to its limits. I think I may just have to do the same, for the reasons you state. He absolutely refuses to debate a topic like an adult.

Yellow, but make sure you blame me for it.

[Kierland]

More lies, I don’t have anyone on ignore & I’m still even posting to you and you are a bot.

[Sven Golly]

You think all 401K money is in equities?

Is that what you are going with?

Much is, but a fair bit isn't. Many of the uber rich who don't need big returns, stuff a lot of it in T bills. And with a 40% tax, those T bills look even better.

I didn’t say all 401k money was in equities. Nice strawman attempt. Try reading what I said and address that, or not since you’re now spinning.

You’re now saying that T-bills are more attractive with a 40% tax rate? Wtf? Why?

Do you even understand the definition of risk?

A T-bill gives you a GUARANTEED return. And if I'm not mistaken, they are tax free.

So, yeah, right about now, a tax free 5% might be looking pretty good compared to putting your money at risk in say, something like SVB stock where it might vanish.

Risk/reward calculations change when it becomes risk/60% of reward.

What is so hard to understand here?

Unfortunately, Uncle Sam gets a bite out of interest paid on T-bills, bonds, and notes, however they are tax exempt at the state and local levels.

[mvscal]

Do you even understand the definition of risk?

A T-bill gives you a GUARANTEED return. And if I'm not mistaken, they are tax free.

So, yeah, right about now, a tax free 5% might be looking pretty good compared to putting your money at risk in say, something like SVB stock where it might vanish.

Risk/reward calculations change when it becomes risk/60% of reward.

What is so hard to understand here?

Evidently, inflation seems to be hard to understand here

[Kierland]

Well you seem to think it has nothing to do with you guys handing out money to rich people or corporate kleptos so yeah it is.

[Smackie Chan]

Perspective from a financial pro:

Last week, two California banks collapsed, causing stock markets to retreat. One of the bank closures was the second largest in U.S. history with over $200 billion in assets. The news came as somewhat of a surprise and raised investor worries. Will there be more bank closures, and will these two closures ripple through the economy?

Unique Banks with Liquidity Events, Not Solvency Events

These two banks served a very niche client base that is not representative of most other banks. The larger bank’s clients were predominantly start-up companies and venture capital companies. The smaller bank’s customers were largely customers in the cryptocurrency business.

The customer bases of these banks were not diversified, and their customers relied heavily on low interest rates. At low interest rates, entrepreneurs can borrow money to start new companies. With the Fed raising interest rates at an unprecedented rate, start-ups (which may not be net cash flow positive) had to use their existing cash balances to pay rents and salaries as new investment capital dried up and borrowing costs rose. Since these banks’ customer bases were not diversified, their customers were facing similar challenges simultaneously and needed their money at the same time, causing a run on the banks. This is what caused the banks to close.

This liquidity crunch ultimately doomed the banks that were already hurting because their investments were predominantly in longer dated U.S. Treasury assets. Because bond prices move inversely to yields, these bonds were recently devalued when long-term bond yields rose. It is important to note that these were liquidity events and not solvency events. While the banks’ asset values did fall with rising bond yields, the assets were performing, unlike 2008 when the underlying mortgage assets were not performing assets

Systemic Risk?

It does not appear that these closures will be a systemic risk to the economy. The Federal Government has stepped in and will allow customers of the large bank to have access to their cash. This relieves concerns around liquidity for the customers at the bank as they begin trying to pay payrolls and other bills. We will be watching the government’s future actions closely in the coming weeks. U.S. Treasury Security Janet Yellen made it clear that she is not in favor of bank bailouts, but she seemed more sympathetic to customers’ liquidity needs.

Summary

This is a painful reminder of the consequences from the Federal Reserve tightening financial conditions. Fed tightening is now showing its mark in banks as well as start-up companies and high growth companies. These recent events may cause the Fed to pause their interest rate hikes sooner than previously expected, and even pivot and lower rates later in the year. They may want to wait and observe the impact they are having on different areas of the economy, since there is a lag between their policy moves and the impact from those moves. Since the Fed began to raise rates only one year ago, much of the policy impact has not been felt yet.

Additionally, outside the scope of bank failures, low unemployment rates are generally considered positive. However, from an inflation perspective, very low unemployment/high jobs supply feeds inflation. One of the aims of the Fed pushing interest rates higher is to raise the unemployment rate and cool the jobs market, with the goal of stabilizing/lowering inflation.

[Kierland]

The only thing that feeds inflation is rising prices. Prices don’t rise in a competitive market due to low unemployment. You’re talking about a rigged market…. Oh wait, never mind.

[Sven Golly]

A tight labor market ABSOLUTELY contributes to inflation dipshit. God you are ignorant.

I guess you’re done with C&H now.

[Kierland]

A tight labor market ABSOLUTELY contributes to inflation dipshit. God you are ignorant.

I guess you’re done with C&H now.

How? You just lower profits for the fat cats and leave the selling price the same. Easy as pie.

[Sven Golly]

A tight labor market ABSOLUTELY contributes to inflation dipshit. God you are ignorant.

I guess you’re done with C&H now.

How? You just lower profits for the fat cats and leave the selling price the same. Easy as pie.

Yeah, easy as pie

[Kierland]

Spoken like a true klepto.

[Sven Golly]

Try to stick to kids’ books vs discussion about finance and economics

[Sven Golly]

Or better yet, reread the Constitution

[Kierland]

Try to stick to kids’ books vs discussion about finance and economics

Nice white flag. Just how will the fat cats pay for a third yacht?

[Kierland]

Or better yet, reread the Constitution

Oh do tell, what part did I miss?

[Kierland]

You should triple post.

[smackaholic]

I didn’t say all 401k money was in equities. Nice strawman attempt. Try reading what I said and address that, or not since you’re now spinning.

You’re now saying that T-bills are more attractive with a 40% tax rate? Wtf? Why?

Do you even understand the definition of risk?

A T-bill gives you a GUARANTEED return. And if I'm not mistaken, they are tax free.

So, yeah, right about now, a tax free 5% might be looking pretty good compared to putting your money at risk in say, something like SVB stock where it might vanish.

Risk/reward calculations change when it becomes risk/60% of reward.

What is so hard to understand here?

Unfortunately, Uncle Sam gets a bite out of interest paid on T-bills, bonds, and notes, however they are tax exempt at the state and local levels.

Thanks for the clarification. I knew there was some tax benefit. Thought it might extend to the fed level. Guess I should know better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sven Golly]

Do you even understand the definition of risk?

A T-bill gives you a GUARANTEED return. And if I'm not mistaken, they are tax free.

So, yeah, right about now, a tax free 5% might be looking pretty good compared to putting your money at risk in say, something like SVB stock where it might vanish.

Risk/reward calculations change when it becomes risk/60% of reward.

What is so hard to understand here?

Unfortunately, Uncle Sam gets a bite out of interest paid on T-bills, bonds, and notes, however they are tax exempt at the state and local levels.

Thanks for the clarification. I knew there was some tax benefit. Thought it might extend to the fed level. Guess I should know better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the worst goddamn time of the year. I just did my taxes and realized the cap gains taxes are much higher than I remember. :x