Stock market tips and experiences

[chassis]

Bay Area real estate bears no resemblance to the US on average. NorCal and Miami are cartoonish real estate markets. US residential real estate on average across the country is unlikely to see a 2008-style meltdown in the near term.

[antzcrashing]

Tomorrow is market wreckoning day.

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by chassis

Bay Area real estate bears no resemblance to the US on average. NorCal and Miami are cartoonish real estate markets. US residential real eastate on average across the country is unlikely to see a 2008-style meltdown in the near term.

Miami was inflated by fake snowbird remote workers, that shit cant last forever

[XKxRome0ox]

GameStop (GME) just reported its first profitable quarter in several years

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by XKxRome0ox

GameStop (GME) just reported its first profitable quarter in several years

Bro qht?! How.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

Bro qht?! How.

smoke and mirrors

[NickyC]

Today is the day! Does the Fed attempt to protect regional/small banks, or do they increase rates yet again to halt rampant inflation? It’s a no win!

I dare not make any predictions, but raising rates at the same time as opening the spigot of QE to save the gamblers would be horrible for the 99%!

[Chick Webb]

Originally Posted by NickyC

I dare not make any predictions, but raising rates at the same time as opening the spigot of QE to save the gamblers would be horrible for the 99%!

"spigot of QE"? What planet are you on? That's the most absurd hyperbole. Opening the discount window to allow some banks to manage their liquidity issues and agreeing with WW central banks to essentially do the same in order to prevent a global run on the banks is not QE in any sense of the word.

And, please, tell us, which "gamblers" have been saved The shareholders of SVB, FRC, Wells, Schwab? The AT1 Credit Swiss bondholders? All of them, essentially wiped out. Not bailed out by anyone. And in many cases those are pension funds investing people's retirement money. They don't gamble.

The only people that they're trying to make whole are the depositors. Sure, many of them had balances over the FDIC limit, but you try running a multi-million dollar business w/o doing that. And, in the case of many SVB clients, they were _required_ by SVB to keep most/all of their money there as a term of their notes.

I get it, just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, but as the prez sez, C'mon man!

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by Chick Webb

"spigot of QE"? What planet are you on? That's the most absurd hyperbole. Opening the discount window to allow some banks to manage their liquidity issues and agreeing with WW central banks to essentially do the same in order to prevent a global run on the banks is not QE in any sense of the word.

And, please, tell us, which "gamblers" have been saved The shareholders of SVB, FRC, Wells, Schwab? The AT1 Credit Swiss bondholders? All of them, essentially wiped out. Not bailed out by anyone. And in many cases those are pension funds investing people's retirement money. They don't gamble.

The only people that they're trying to make whole are the depositors. Sure, many of them had balances over the FDIC limit, but you try running a multi-million dollar business w/o doing that. And, in the case of many SVB clients, they were _required_ by SVB to keep most/all of their money there as a term of their notes.

I get it, just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you, but as the prez sez, C'mon man!

The discount window essentially opens $2 trillion in possible Fed injections. Even JPM has said as much, a “stealth” form of QE.

$250k means $250k, the rules have once again been changed on a whim to protect the 1% and to completely screw over everyone else. The banks have once again been told they are allowed to keep their winnings, while the tax payers (or should I say the magic printing machines) will cover the losses.

I spoke incorrectly, they are not “gamblers”. They are predetermined winners.

[cmyx6go]

Originally Posted by Chick Webb

The only people that they're trying to make whole are the depositors. Sure, many of them had balances over the FDIC limit, but you try running a multi-million dollar business w/o doing that. And, in the case of many SVB clients, they were _required_ by SVB to keep most/all of their money there as a term of their notes.

Originally Posted by NickyC

$250k means $250k, the rules have once again been changed on a whim to protect the 1% and to completely screw over everyone else. The banks have once again been told they are allowed to keep their winnings, while the tax payers (or should I say the magic printing machines) will cover the losses.

It's not just SVB. Most banks require that businesses keep the majority of their money at their bank. We have two small carve outs but otherwise all monies need to stay under one roof. Besides that, like you said, there is no way for a business to operate with a $250K cap on accounts. There should be separate rules for business.

NickyC - If the business depositors weren't covered, they would all go out of business and all their employees would be casualties. Not to mention all their vendors not getting paid. The trickle down is huge. I'm not talking Crypto or high risk businesses. A lot of solid people would be caught up. I'm not for throwing money around, but they had to cover the business depositors. Again, there should be separate rules for businesses.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by cmyx6go

It's not just SVB. Most banks require that businesses keep the majority of their money at their bank. We have two small carve outs but otherwise all monies need to stay under one roof. Besides that, like you said, there is no way for a business to operate with a $250K cap on accounts. There should be separate rules for business.

NickyC - If the business depositors weren't covered, they would all go out of business and all their employees would be casualties. Not to mention all their vendors not getting paid. The trickle down is huge. I'm not talking Crypto or high risk businesses. A lot of solid people would be caught up. I'm not for throwing money around, but they had to cover the business depositors. Again, there should be separate rules for businesses.

That’s fine, then we change the rules to reflect that. If the cap is raised that cost will of course be paid by the tax payer in higher fees charged by the banks. That is technically a bailout as well no matter how they try to spin it. Banks will not eat those added costs, the 99% will be burdened with those.

In testimony last week Yellen essentially admitted that the deposits over $250k are being guaranteed right now at banks of their choosing (in other words their friends). To guarantee all deposits, the Fed would have to backstop around $17 trillion which is unfathomable. I don’t even think the Fed has the phony money printing capacity for that.

Perhaps we should not have allowed banks to engage in risky investment practices and have them act as, well, banks. Too late now!

[antzcrashing]

Bollinger bands are narrowing

[antzcrashing]

Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY

smoke and mirrors

So like non-gap earnings and creating a spin off divison or naa?

[NickyC]

So 25bps hike and dovish on future rate hikes, lol. Tell us you’ve chosen the bank bros over fighting inflation without telling us JPow.

The SVB scenario below coming to many more banks soon. Socialize losses at all cost!

[BMW F22]

Can someone help explain to me why the market tanked today even though the rate hike was in line with expectations? I didn’t watch all of the speech so might have missed things.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by BMW F22

Can someone help explain to me why the market tanked today even though the rate hike was in line with expectations? I didn’t watch all of the speech so might have missed things.

Yellen didn’t get the memo, opened her mouth, and said they’re not considering a broad increase in deposit insurance. Hilarious.

They raise rates in the middle of a banking crisis which was caused by the said raising of rates, and then cool any talk of increasing deposit insurance. To call them completely incompetent really isn’t fair as there are no good options now.

[bagekko]

It makes absolutely no sense to raise rates .25 today. Now I would say they shouldn't raise them again for 6 months or rest of the year and let things stabilize. Only logic I can see is for inside trading politicians & insiders to make a few bucks on the drop today.

[Tyga11]

Originally Posted by NickyC

So 25bps hike and dovish on future rate hikes, lol. Tell us you’ve chosen the bank bros over fighting inflation without telling us JPow.

The SVB scenario below coming to many more banks soon. Socialize losses at all cost!

How was he dovish? He was hawkish. The market was pricing in cuts Q4 and he said he's not doing that, basically.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by Tyga11

How was he dovish? He was hawkish. The market was pricing in cuts Q4 and he said he's not doing that, basically.

I was referring to his line about "some additional policy firming may be appropriate" as dovish, but you are correct he mentioned inflation remaining elevated which could be seen as hawkish.

I believe the market is pricing in 100bps of cuts by December, so there certainly does appear to be some disconnect between JPow and everyone else.

[Tyga11]

Originally Posted by NickyC

I was referring to his line about "some additional policy firming may be appropriate" as dovish, but you are correct he mentioned inflation remaining elevated which could be seen as hawkish.

I believe the market is pricing in 100bps of cuts by December, so there certainly does appear to be some disconnect between JPow and everyone else.

The market is in denial...like me in my past relationships. But that's a different story

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by Tyga11

The market is in denial...like me in my past relationships. But that's a different story

Hah, I hear ya!

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by cmyx6go

It's not just SVB. Most banks require that businesses keep the majority of their money at their bank. We have two small carve outs but otherwise all monies need to stay under one roof. Besides that, like you said, there is no way for a business to operate with a $250K cap on accounts. There should be separate rules for business.

NickyC - If the business depositors weren't covered, they would all go out of business and all their employees would be casualties. Not to mention all their vendors not getting paid. The trickle down is huge. I'm not talking Crypto or high risk businesses. A lot of solid people would be caught up. I'm not for throwing money around, but they had to cover the business depositors. Again, there should be separate rules for businesses.

The FDIC looked at excess deposit insurance previously and concluded (at that time) it wasn’t necessary. There are banking arrangements that allow customers to deposit funds into one bank, but have them spread by the bank to other banks to effectively increase deposited funds insured by the FDIC or move some into a brokerage insured by SIPC. Obviously, the more cash there is, the more difficult it is to deploy these strategies. I think some combination of a modest increase in FDIC coverage in light of inflation since last increase (maybe to $350K or $500K) and the ability for banks or depositors to buy coverage for excess deposits (either through the FDIC or private insurance reinsured by the FDIC) makes sense to reconsider and would (theoretically) put the cost of underwriting the insurance on the insured and reduce the risk of knee jerk bank runs. However, offering excess deposit insurance would likely necessitate high premiums and / or ratcheting up the regulation of banks (either legislatively or through private insurance covenants) so the insurers aren’t left holding a big bag of shit, which in turn might result in the banks raising fees for everyone and tightening credit as their investment returns reflect a lower risk tolerance. I think it’s more difficult to balance than it sounds, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be an updated evaluation.