Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ShoestringTherapy t1_jcgjopn wrote

Watching the market react to things like this really puts in perspective how little I understand any of this.

But I'm stubborn so I'll keep trying

40

pegothejerk t1_jcglhnt wrote

Replying to SsurebreC (#2,246,227)

I’d still prefer to know what the experts are saying and ignore redditers, as at least when Cramer says to invest in something I know it’s days away from collapse. Who knows with some weirdo telling me how to invest and then going to make memes where his gerbils are dressed as Spider-Man pointing at each other.

16

MalcolmLinair t1_jcgqqml wrote

This whole bank debacle is making me think of the old Simpsons gag with the pig at barbecue. "It's just one bank failing, the economy's still good...! It's just a few small banks shut down, it's still good, it's still good...! It's just a major bank begging for help, it's still good, it's still good...!"

26

PhoenixReborn t1_jch3537 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#2,246,295)

They were pretty explicit that SVB and Signature were getting an exception due to systemic risk. The Fed and FDIC would have to reach the same conclusion for another intervention. How many deposits in Oklahoma are even uninsured?

4

InteractionNOVA2021 t1_jch8md9 wrote

Replying to Jeremycycles (#2,246,763)

The FDIC will require the other banks it insures to pay a special assessment to help pay for at least some of this depositor rescue. The same thing happened after the Banking Crisis of 2008. At that time, the premium was 20 cents for every $100 dollars of domestic deposits.

I also anticipate that the FDIC will recover a decent amount from the sale of SVB's assets. This isn't the typical situation in which the bank is burdened by a substantial portfolio of non-performing loans.

2

Xivvx t1_jchfbh7 wrote

As long as the executives, employees and shareholders aren't being bailed out by government money, it's fine.

1

0pimo t1_jchwygy wrote

Replying to ShoestringTherapy (#2,246,197)

The basic thing to understand about Wall Street is that stocks go up and down largely based on how people feel about things, not based on any real quantitative reasoning.

A company posts record profits? Stock goes up. The amount it goes up isn't based on how big the profits are really other than the bigger the number the more people like it.

If you want to see this stupidity in action, at one point Tesla was valued more than every other car company on the planet combined.

28

baxterstate t1_jci35dk wrote

I hope that any depositor who has more than the $250,000 limit is reimbursed even if it means that there’s not enough money in the FDIC fund and taxpayers will have to make up the difference.

This is what’s been done with the SVB bailout, so it’s only fair that First Republic gets the same treatment.

−5

Mr_Mouthbreather t1_jci714l wrote

Is there any way we can get away from the massive "too big to fail" banks? Isn't that the more major problem?

2

evensevenone t1_jcifzft wrote

Replying to 0pimo (#2,248,755)

Oh it’s even worse, like my company announces our prediction for earnings, then a bunch of random analysts pick different numbers and if we’re not at those numbers the stock goes down.

7

JackedUpReadyToGo t1_jcj2juk wrote

Replying to lifeisawork_3300 (#2,247,422)

I find myself missing the good old days of classic Simpsons more and more. Not only were the townsfolk of Springfield the quickest people in the world to descend into an angry torch-waving mob, they also manage to do so while completely upending a scene from a classic heartwarming movie like It's a Wonderful Life. It's such a humorous kind of misanthropy, heaping scorn on the myths we tell ourselves about the better angels of human nature and sketching a more accurate depiction of the way modern Americans truly act. The Simpsons has become so engrained in modern culture it's easy to forget it was once considered subversive, with the fucking President taking time out of his day to criticize it.

"Hey, what the hell ya doing with my money in ya house, Fred?" * punch *

2

TheBirdBytheWindow t1_jcjgvnx wrote

Replying to HildemarTendler (#2,251,020)

>Ranchers don't typically have a ton of cash in banks.

Maybe not, but they have accounts of some magnitude to process their banking and then the mortgage on the property if not owned outright. There's significant investment there and it can't all be owned outright.

1

HardToPeeMidasTouch t1_jckspvi wrote

Replying to ThoughensTheNipples (#2,246,644)

Diversify by inserting a view rare metal coins(preferably gold) since you can get more value per gram) up your urethra for safe keeping. Cheaper than a bank deposit box and you always have them on hand incase of a massive crash. Gold will always have value.

1

Draker-X t1_jcmh6ls wrote

Replying to PM_ME_UR_DIET_TIPS (#2,246,372)

If we want to kill the business side of non-big banks, sure. This is basically telling every business other than the truly smallest that they're better off with one of "the Big 4" rather than even a good-sized, multi-state regional bank.

3

Draker-X t1_jcmijoq wrote

Replying to Mr_Mouthbreather (#2,249,312)

The issue right now is that we don't know where the "too big to fail" line is.

Right now that would go to banks that have "greater than X" percentage of their depositors be businesses with deposits over $250K.

People could probably figure out the number of businesses, but how would anyone solve for "x"?

2