T1B

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:52 pm
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.

Donnie Baker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 2:46 pm The King of Whatabout doing what he does.

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 5:12 pm

Donnie Baker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 2:46 pm 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.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 10:59 pm

Meat Head wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:13 pm

LTS TRN 2 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 8:36 am 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.

JPGettysburg wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 6:48 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 6:21 pm 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.

Rootbeer wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 5:15 pm

Kierland wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 3:13 pm Apparently, they bought a large chunk of US bonds….

They have to, that’s how banking works.

Bill in Houston wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 6:15 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 3:10 pm

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sat Mar 11, 2023 2:58 am 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.

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 12:08 am 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/

Bill in Houston wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 3:32 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:52 pm
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?

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:04 am

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 12:08 am 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 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 2:30 am 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.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:15 pm 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]

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:09 am

Bill in Houston wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 3:32 pm

smackaholic wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 5:52 pm
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.

Bill in Houston wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:51 am

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:09 am

Bill in Houston wrote: ↑Mon Mar 13, 2023 3:32 pm

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?

trevvie wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:25 am I'd tap that.

-Kierland

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 12:57 am
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 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:20 am

Bill in Houston wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:51 am

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 1:09 am

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?

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:20 am
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?

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.

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:13 pm A tight labor market ABSOLUTELY contributes to inflation dipshit. God you are ignorant.

I guess you’re done with C&H now.

Kierland wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:25 pm

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:13 pm 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 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:43 pm Try to stick to kids’ books vs discussion about finance and economics

Sven Golly wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 5:44 pm Or better yet, reread the Constitution

Sven Golly wrote:

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:20 am

Bill in Houston wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 4:51 am 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.

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 7:49 pm

Sven Golly wrote:

smackaholic wrote: ↑Tue Mar 14, 2023 10:20 am

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