Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KenGriffinsDaddy t1_je7kha8 wrote

Pretty sure Moody’s just said unrealized losses represent almost 40% of the money FRC set aside to absorb losses and they would also take losses on a large amount of residential mortgage loans, which is why they downgraded them. That hasn’t changed. It’s alarming that they needed the 30 billion schneebs from their buddies to survive, no? There is more to this than they are leading on for sure but what we see and know is more than enough to stay away. The fucking thing was trading at $147/share less than 2 months ago. Big depositors and smart money left/sold and I have my doubts it was simply because “they unfairly lost confidence”

18

PussyBreath007 OP t1_je7mrgy wrote

I don’t put a lot of faith in Moody’s ratings for a number of reasons.

As far as your claim “big money left” why would BofA, Citi, JPM etc just deposit $20B if they suspected their deposits would disappear?

7

dbgtboi t1_je8bxed wrote

>As far as your claim “big money left” why would BofA, Citi, JPM etc just deposit $20B if they suspected their deposits would disappear?

You're way overthinking this. Look at banking stocks right now, they all got slammed because of the bank issues. They helped FRC because if FRC went bust it would take them down even further. They didn't help FRC out of love, they helped FRC to save their own asses because they knew the government / the fed would have let FRC blow up.

9

PussyBreath007 OP t1_je8cgdx wrote

I believe you’re underthinking it. The prevailing narrative as these regional banks were collapsing was to get your $ into the largest banks. If anything, the more regional banks that went under, the more depositors would flee to the big boys… of course they didn’t do it for love, they did it because they see FRC as a low-risk, short-term-high-reward investment because it’s being unfairly lumped into the same group as SVB and Signature (who both a had a much different, irredeemable type of exposure)

6

dbgtboi t1_je8d9h5 wrote

With every banking crisis comes increased regulation which is bad for business and profits. Even if the big boys got more deposits, they would get kneecapped by the government and any new regulations will last a lifetime.

−4

SuperAmerica123 t1_je8zwoz wrote

Right. Because in 2009 after everything collapsed the Banks went bankrupt and definitely had very strict regulations that were ruthlessly enforced up until today…

8

517UATION t1_je8o0co wrote

By lifetime I think you mean the next Republican president.

6

shbtc t1_je7p2kr wrote

They’d all rather be depositors than shareholders

3

PussyBreath007 OP t1_je7rsru wrote

Their deposits aren’t insured. Less risk than being a shareholder (in the meantime) but definitely not zero risk

2

shbtc t1_je7tq8z wrote

I thought fed said they’d continue to insure over 250k at banks whose failures might hurt the economy (too big to fail). I’ll bet the big banks with all their political control are sure their money falls in that category. If nothing else, their massive deposits brought FRC into that category.

1

PussyBreath007 OP t1_je7ubx0 wrote

That’s an awful lot of speculation and the Fed has received increasing backlash from bailing out SVB

0

shbtc t1_je7uir4 wrote

And has yet to rescind the new policy

1

PussyBreath007 OP t1_je7vmuu wrote

It’s been opaque at best. Powell and Yellen literally were saying opposite things last week

4

shbtc t1_je7wz84 wrote

I had only seen Yellen say “only the big bois “. Thanks for pointing that out. I still think you underestimate the power of these banks. Fed meets at banks’ offices when it hits the fan. Not the other way around.

1

That-Relation-5846 t1_je7o8jy wrote

>Pretty sure Moody’s just said unrealized losses represent almost 40% of the money FRC set aside to absorb losses and they would also take losses on a large amount of residential mortgage loans, which is why they downgraded them to That hasn’t changed. It’s alarming that they needed the 30 billion schneebs from their buddies to survive, no? There is more to this than they are leading on for sure but what we see and know is more than enough to stay away. The fucking thing was trading at $147/share less than 2 months ago. Big depositors and smart money left/sold and I have my doubts it was simply because “they unfairly lost confidence”

FRC is an SF bank; there's a lot of overlap between their customer base and SVB's customer base. When SVB went down, it was inevitable that the jitters would spread to the other local bank that services a ton of rich people in the same area.

2

diqster t1_je85h8l wrote

FRC is on the east coast, too. New England and Florida.

SVB was solely the Bay Area.

2

sf_warriors t1_je8l2w9 wrote

FRC has presence in coasts like LA, Boston, Florida and NY. 40% of their customer base is non-bay area

2

That-Relation-5846 t1_je955cl wrote

When 60% of customers are in the same area with a lot of direct and indirect customer overlap, it doesn’t surprise me that FRC saw a more severe bank run after SVB than, say, WAL. I believe FRB offers a differentiated level of service (as SVB did) and will see deposits slowly flow back, so anything that buys them time increases the likelihood of them solving this without diluting shareholders, selling the whole thing at a discount, or taking heavy losses over an extended period. The P/L will be harmed for a while, but they offer too good a product to not recover over time. They were valued at a significant premium over book for good reason.

2