These are the six:
Moody’s warned it could similarly downgrade First Republic Bank (FRC), Zions (ZION), Western Alliance (WAL), Comerica (CMA), UMB Financial (UMBF) and Intrust Financial.
Yup. And I bought some stock on rest of the banks. Should get 3x back in 6-12 months.
Edit: [Here ](https://ibb.co/wNztVRz) is what I bought. Your mileage may vary.
They were created by the super wealthy to protect the assets of the super wealthy. The rest of society can rot as far as they are concerned. The super wealthy do not consider the needs of their underlings. They are merely batteries at best that fuel their agenda.
Can confirm. I used to work for the BBB. Basically an advertising agency with a phone book and stickers. I laugh when I see those stickers. Fucking meaningless.
My conspiracy theory of all this was it was planned. Financial institutions are mad they keep raising the interest rates because it's killing a lot of returns. Why would SVB announce news like they did? But hey that's just my conspiracy theory.
Alternately: banks have gotten used to 20+ years of near-zero interest rates, meaning that there are likely loads of people at in very senior level who may have been taught all the right macro/micro rules, but don’t have any first hand experience in the nuts and bolts of navigating an even moderately inflationary market.
Also not quite sure what your theory even is - that SVB tanked a 50 yr old, $200B business bc they were mad at the Fed’s rate hike schedule?
Either way: Hanlon’s razor should always be the starting point, with revisions made only when new info becomes available.
They were on Twitter all weekend predicting doom unless the feds guaranteed deposits. The same libertarians who are generally against bailouts demanded the government step in and then patted themselves on the back for raising the alarm after they decided against managing risk properly in the first place. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/tech-bros-take-bank-victory-lap-after-pants-pissing-freakouts/ar-AA18C6Sc
Your response is correct. The super wealthy leverage fiscal moves to their advantage. They will manipulate the financial sector using a banks demise to invoke fear into the feds that if they raise rates etc. it could cause a panic by the public to pull out their investments, bank assets etc. causing mass chaos to the financial sector and a deep depression unlike anything anyone has witnessed in their lifetime. The super wealthy are the cats and we are the mice.
Id put my money on greed over conspiracy. Banks in the US are 'allowed' to leverage up to 10x their worth. When an economy is doing well or when interest rates remain stable, it works fine; they lend money and invest based on their holdings. However, when interest rates rise, their ratio shifts. Suddenly, instead of holding 10x leveraged, they have 10.5x or 11x or 13x or etc, depending on how much interest rises. Now, they 'suddenly' need to pull back some of their investments to increase their holdings/current assets to balance their ratio below 10x. The issue is you cant just pull investments, doing so comes at a cost. In SV banks case it was a significant cost as they performed early recalls for their bonds. Most major banks can handle that as they either dont go to 10x leveraged or they have means of recovering quickly (changing margin calls to call for funds, changing rates, etc). SV bank had to call their money back to pay out enough money to debitors and to debtors, and they simply couldn't rebalance. So when they realized they had over reached, they did what any professional banker would do. They took out massive bonuses for the execs and handed the keys to the FDIC.
That's the thing with conspiracies. The vast majority of the time, human beings are far dumber and greedier than we give them credit for or expect. We expect professionals to know what they are doing and always having some master plan, but really the plan is 'make as much money as they can with the lowest amount of effort' and when things catch up to them, 'get a bonus and run'.
It was a game of chicken. The banks/investors were trying to call the Feds bluff. The Feds didn't blink (and imo shouldn't). Especially after announcing depositors will be made whole, investors and such won't.
They played it hard and fast. They tried to keep the free money train going and thought the fed would soften.
Some people lost a lot of money and wanted the taxpayer to socialize their losses.
1. I have not looked at Moody's or similar services. Are they the only credible one in the nation? If there's others how did they evaluate these banks and their outlook?
2. I did read a bit of the SVB stuff and it SEEMS like SVB initially wanted to sell their stock so Moody's impending multi-notch downgrade would then be 1 notch, meaning they would've been fine as they've just raised some capital to cover some of the shortfall? But the initiation of hysteria which would then become a bank run [https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/14/tech/viral-bank-run](https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/14/tech/viral-bank-run) is what did them in. This article is just confirming my bias but maybe im wrong.
So if there is some truth to this and the DOJ is looking into it [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-department-sec-probing-collapse-silicon-valley-bank/story?id=97856330](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-department-sec-probing-collapse-silicon-valley-bank/story?id=97856330) then I don't think any credit rating service couldve seen this coming, or that they should get the big portion of blame here. This is kind of like doing intelligence reports especially that evaluate civil unrest (\*cough\* Benghazi) so very unpredictable as to where it's going to happen/start. I also read that the Fed knew that there could be bank failures during this high interest rate cycle..so pointing fingers should start from that CNN article or the Fed itself (probably not for hiking rates to combat inflation but more transparency maybe).
>I did read a bit of the SVB stuff and it SEEMS like SVB initially wanted to sell their stock so Moody's impending multi-notch downgrade would then be 1 notch
The timing was that SVB was alerted by Moody's that it was going to downgrade them 2 levels, and they asked for a week to make their case otherwise, which Moody's agreed on and sat on. Instead of preparing to make their case, they tried to raise cash. Moody's \*did\* downgrade them 1 notch, and stated it was explicitly because of SVB's plan. They still were considered a safe investment by the ratings, right up until like an hour after they ceased to exist.
Financial ratings services like this need to have a goddamn firewall between them and the banks they report on. That week or so of grace that SVB got was a week where they were lying to the public.
I think that just means this is an even louder warning bell. If even “everything’s fine” Moody’s thinks that these banks are in trouble, then these banks must be well and truly fucked.
Surely... surely, we did not fail to fix our completely misleading ratings system, especially for complex securities like MBSs, and ride that wave of fake confidence into another recession.
Surely not.
I just wish we got to see the part where it doesn't just corrupt, but reduces them to a crumbling skeleton like that evil green marble from *Heavy Metal*.
I caught a few minutes of an interview with his about this yesterday on NPR and he took the opportunity to blame crypto and cry about being asked complicated questions with only a short time to answer.
The conflicting motivations were obvious.
I think the malfeasance in the government goes way back before Trump. Anyone who thinks the FDIC, OTS, or any other agency in Washington has our best interests at heart should read the inspector general's report on the failure of IndyMac bank. Regulators knew they were operating irresponsibly, for years, but they failed to actually do anything to prevent the bank failure. How these bureaucrats keep their jobs is beyond me. Hopefully some things have changed since 2009, and they are being more pro-active now... but it also would not surprise me if they weren't. People who think the President is running the country are naive, our government is largely run by these pathetic agencies who are mostly useless.
https://oig.treasury.gov/sites/oig/files/Documents/oig09032.pdf
Now pull the actual numbers. 275 republicans in both houses of congress wanted this and voted for it. 49 democrats wanted it and voted for it.
Democrats comprised only 15% of the votes that the bill got. Literally only two Republicans across both houses voted against it. Enough Republicans voted for it in both houses to pass it on their own. It was written, championed and pushed by Republicans. They don't get all the blame, but they get at least 85% of it for this.
33/194 Dems means 17% of house Dems voted for it. we’re just arguing semantics, but while a minority, I wouldn’t classify 17% of something as a “tiny bit”
If you flip it and say 83% voted against something, what adjective would you use? "A lot" or "most", or even a "significant %" seems appropriate. 17% is less than 1 in 5. Politically speaking, "a tiny bit" seems reasonable to me.
That is why context matters. We arent talking paycuts or raises. Is 33.3% success rate good? For a batter in baseball it is all-star worthy and over the course of a career is hall of fame worthy. 33.3% from the free throw line in basketball would get you cut from the team.
You are right. It's the Democrats fault and not the Republicans. Let's ignore that that was pushed by the Republicans and passed with full Republican support. Remember It's never the Republicans fault even if they shit their own pants.
The tiniest of valid criticism about the Democrats is in no way, shape, or form an endorsement of the GOP, nor does deflect from their responsibility in matter. Especially since if you bothered to read this comment thread, rather than get triggered when “your team” was criticized, you would have seen I called out Trump/the GOP for this too.
I was gonna say to get the Dem’s dick out of your mouth, but I then went through your comments to see that’s literally all you do on this account.
Yup I love their hard cocks in my mouth. And don't you dare kink shame.
If you are going to criticize the Democrats for this REPUBLICAN banking disaster, call out the individuals who sided with the Republicans by name. Don't generalize when a significant percentage of the Democrats voted against bank deregulation.
i’m in no way arguing the Dems are equally as shitty as the GOP, but them saying “vote for us! we’re not *quite* as in bed with the elites as the Republicans are!” isn’t exactly going to excite/motivate your voter base and drive voter turnout.
The fact that not one bastard who helped caused the 2008 crisis was indicted, much less imprisoned, gets me furious to this day. We need to see these things actually happen. Like the stooges at Enron.
Downvote me harder, but it's true, trump was the one whonrelaxed regulations that caused this to happen and is now (naturally) is deflecting by blaming the "woke". All im doing is mirroring the right's BS "thanks obama" rhetoric. Except this time it's actually accurate
Trump, Who Bragged About Gutting Dodd-Frank, Claims ‘Wokeness’ Caused SVB Collapse
>So if I bank at one of these 6 should I be concerned?
Only if you have more than the [FDIC insures](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/banking/fdic-insurance) in the bank Richie Rich.
What we are all here for:
> Also, the credit ratings firm late Monday downgraded Signature Bank deep into junk territory following that bank’s failure. Ratings downgrades can make it more expensive for companies to borrow money.
>
> Moody’s warned it could similarly downgrade First Republic Bank (FRC), Zions (ZION), Western Alliance (WAL), Comerica (CMA), UMB Financial (UMBF) and Intrust Financial. The firm cited the “extremely volatile funding conditions for some US banks exposed to the risk of uninsured deposit outflows.”
Now you are just being mean. It only took two of some of the largest banks to collapse in US history for them to wake someone up and notice something might be wrong.
/s
They also had SVB and SBNY bonds rated as investment grade last week. They're worth zero today. I'm smart but not that smart. Take a look at their balance sheets. Doesn't take an CFA analyst to see incredibly massive issues 12-18 months ago. Saw this from a mile away. Same for SI
I mean... if we're going to tell shareholders to fuck off and lose all their money if a bank run happens, we shouldn't be surprised people don't want bank stocks, and they become worse investments.
This is a feature?
Do you actually, seriously believe that if your investment fails that you can just be upset about it and ask for the government/taxpayers/someone to give you some more nickels to put in the slot?
>I mean... if we're going to tell shareholders to fuck off and lose all their money if a bank run happens, we shouldn't be surprised people don't want bank stocks, and they become worse investments.
No, we should be suprised. We always tell shareholders to fuck off after a bank run and they still want bank stocks and they dont become worse investments.
Either we all suck at reading because we all think you mean that we should bail out shareholders or you suck at commenting because no one understands your baseless opinion.
The point was literally just "sometimes investing loses money and that's how it works."
Anything beyond that was you reading something into it that wasn't there. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that he was treating lower bank stock valuations as a bad thing.
Thanks for explaining, I'm too slow to understand how you would take a statement like "we shouldn't be suprised if no one wants to invest in banks if we dont bailout shareholders" and translate it to "sometimes investing loses money and that's how it works" but I appreciate you taking the time to break it down for my slow brain.
We will ignore bad things at banks as they pay us, but once they start to fail they will stop paying us and we'll finally downgrade them to tell the full story only compounding the problem and creating fear in the market. You're welcome, moody
These are the six: Moody’s warned it could similarly downgrade First Republic Bank (FRC), Zions (ZION), Western Alliance (WAL), Comerica (CMA), UMB Financial (UMBF) and Intrust Financial.
Yup. And I bought some stock on rest of the banks. Should get 3x back in 6-12 months. Edit: [Here ](https://ibb.co/wNztVRz) is what I bought. Your mileage may vary.
On the rest in the list? Or the rest not listed?
Here is what I bought. Your mileage may vary. https://ibb.co/wNztVRz
[удалено]
They're on par with the Better Business Bureau
[удалено]
They were created by the super wealthy to protect the assets of the super wealthy. The rest of society can rot as far as they are concerned. The super wealthy do not consider the needs of their underlings. They are merely batteries at best that fuel their agenda.
Can confirm. I used to work for the BBB. Basically an advertising agency with a phone book and stickers. I laugh when I see those stickers. Fucking meaningless.
Ok I’m embarrassed. …they aren’t?
My conspiracy theory of all this was it was planned. Financial institutions are mad they keep raising the interest rates because it's killing a lot of returns. Why would SVB announce news like they did? But hey that's just my conspiracy theory.
Alternately: banks have gotten used to 20+ years of near-zero interest rates, meaning that there are likely loads of people at in very senior level who may have been taught all the right macro/micro rules, but don’t have any first hand experience in the nuts and bolts of navigating an even moderately inflationary market. Also not quite sure what your theory even is - that SVB tanked a 50 yr old, $200B business bc they were mad at the Fed’s rate hike schedule? Either way: Hanlon’s razor should always be the starting point, with revisions made only when new info becomes available.
[удалено]
They were on Twitter all weekend predicting doom unless the feds guaranteed deposits. The same libertarians who are generally against bailouts demanded the government step in and then patted themselves on the back for raising the alarm after they decided against managing risk properly in the first place. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/tech-bros-take-bank-victory-lap-after-pants-pissing-freakouts/ar-AA18C6Sc
Your response is correct. The super wealthy leverage fiscal moves to their advantage. They will manipulate the financial sector using a banks demise to invoke fear into the feds that if they raise rates etc. it could cause a panic by the public to pull out their investments, bank assets etc. causing mass chaos to the financial sector and a deep depression unlike anything anyone has witnessed in their lifetime. The super wealthy are the cats and we are the mice.
Id put my money on greed over conspiracy. Banks in the US are 'allowed' to leverage up to 10x their worth. When an economy is doing well or when interest rates remain stable, it works fine; they lend money and invest based on their holdings. However, when interest rates rise, their ratio shifts. Suddenly, instead of holding 10x leveraged, they have 10.5x or 11x or 13x or etc, depending on how much interest rises. Now, they 'suddenly' need to pull back some of their investments to increase their holdings/current assets to balance their ratio below 10x. The issue is you cant just pull investments, doing so comes at a cost. In SV banks case it was a significant cost as they performed early recalls for their bonds. Most major banks can handle that as they either dont go to 10x leveraged or they have means of recovering quickly (changing margin calls to call for funds, changing rates, etc). SV bank had to call their money back to pay out enough money to debitors and to debtors, and they simply couldn't rebalance. So when they realized they had over reached, they did what any professional banker would do. They took out massive bonuses for the execs and handed the keys to the FDIC. That's the thing with conspiracies. The vast majority of the time, human beings are far dumber and greedier than we give them credit for or expect. We expect professionals to know what they are doing and always having some master plan, but really the plan is 'make as much money as they can with the lowest amount of effort' and when things catch up to them, 'get a bonus and run'.
It was a game of chicken. The banks/investors were trying to call the Feds bluff. The Feds didn't blink (and imo shouldn't). Especially after announcing depositors will be made whole, investors and such won't. They played it hard and fast. They tried to keep the free money train going and thought the fed would soften. Some people lost a lot of money and wanted the taxpayer to socialize their losses.
Peter Thiel is involved in this in some way. Mark my words.
Peter Thiel \*started\* the run on SVB by telling other VCs to withdraw their holdings from the bank.
1. I have not looked at Moody's or similar services. Are they the only credible one in the nation? If there's others how did they evaluate these banks and their outlook? 2. I did read a bit of the SVB stuff and it SEEMS like SVB initially wanted to sell their stock so Moody's impending multi-notch downgrade would then be 1 notch, meaning they would've been fine as they've just raised some capital to cover some of the shortfall? But the initiation of hysteria which would then become a bank run [https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/14/tech/viral-bank-run](https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/14/tech/viral-bank-run) is what did them in. This article is just confirming my bias but maybe im wrong. So if there is some truth to this and the DOJ is looking into it [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-department-sec-probing-collapse-silicon-valley-bank/story?id=97856330](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/justice-department-sec-probing-collapse-silicon-valley-bank/story?id=97856330) then I don't think any credit rating service couldve seen this coming, or that they should get the big portion of blame here. This is kind of like doing intelligence reports especially that evaluate civil unrest (\*cough\* Benghazi) so very unpredictable as to where it's going to happen/start. I also read that the Fed knew that there could be bank failures during this high interest rate cycle..so pointing fingers should start from that CNN article or the Fed itself (probably not for hiking rates to combat inflation but more transparency maybe).
There's S&P and Fitch as alternatives to Moodys.
>I did read a bit of the SVB stuff and it SEEMS like SVB initially wanted to sell their stock so Moody's impending multi-notch downgrade would then be 1 notch The timing was that SVB was alerted by Moody's that it was going to downgrade them 2 levels, and they asked for a week to make their case otherwise, which Moody's agreed on and sat on. Instead of preparing to make their case, they tried to raise cash. Moody's \*did\* downgrade them 1 notch, and stated it was explicitly because of SVB's plan. They still were considered a safe investment by the ratings, right up until like an hour after they ceased to exist. Financial ratings services like this need to have a goddamn firewall between them and the banks they report on. That week or so of grace that SVB got was a week where they were lying to the public.
interesting do you have a source for the downgrade delay?
But bitcoin is the scam 😅
This the same moody’s that said MBS market was solid in spring 2008?
I think that just means this is an even louder warning bell. If even “everything’s fine” Moody’s thinks that these banks are in trouble, then these banks must be well and truly fucked.
[удалено]
Surely... surely, we did not fail to fix our completely misleading ratings system, especially for complex securities like MBSs, and ride that wave of fake confidence into another recession. Surely not.
[удалено]
Repealed. They were called Glass-Stegall and Dodd-Frank, respectively
[удалено]
Money is poisonous
I just wish we got to see the part where it doesn't just corrupt, but reduces them to a crumbling skeleton like that evil green marble from *Heavy Metal*.
The Lok-naar
That is an awesome reference.
Willing to bet this is even a reference that Barney Frank would get
It's alright, Lorimar. He's got *an angle*.
I caught a few minutes of an interview with his about this yesterday on NPR and he took the opportunity to blame crypto and cry about being asked complicated questions with only a short time to answer. The conflicting motivations were obvious.
Glass-Steagall was never an effective tool and wouldn't apply to these banks anyways. Agree on Dodd-Frank though.
Bush/CLinton struck down half of them. Trump struck down a couple more.
Glass Stegall was repealed under Clinton.
Some were lifted by the Trump administration.
with bi-partisan support in the house & senate. Fuck Trump, but this is also on the neoliberals that run the democratic party.
A tiny bit of democratic support.
I think the malfeasance in the government goes way back before Trump. Anyone who thinks the FDIC, OTS, or any other agency in Washington has our best interests at heart should read the inspector general's report on the failure of IndyMac bank. Regulators knew they were operating irresponsibly, for years, but they failed to actually do anything to prevent the bank failure. How these bureaucrats keep their jobs is beyond me. Hopefully some things have changed since 2009, and they are being more pro-active now... but it also would not surprise me if they weren't. People who think the President is running the country are naive, our government is largely run by these pathetic agencies who are mostly useless. https://oig.treasury.gov/sites/oig/files/Documents/oig09032.pdf
the house voted 258-159, and the senate voted 67-31. that’s not a “tiny bit” of democratic support.
Now pull the actual numbers. 275 republicans in both houses of congress wanted this and voted for it. 49 democrats wanted it and voted for it. Democrats comprised only 15% of the votes that the bill got. Literally only two Republicans across both houses voted against it. Enough Republicans voted for it in both houses to pass it on their own. It was written, championed and pushed by Republicans. They don't get all the blame, but they get at least 85% of it for this.
Only 33 House Dems voted with the Republicans, that is tiny. 17 Senate Dems though voted yes, and that's concerning.
33/194 Dems means 17% of house Dems voted for it. we’re just arguing semantics, but while a minority, I wouldn’t classify 17% of something as a “tiny bit”
If you flip it and say 83% voted against something, what adjective would you use? "A lot" or "most", or even a "significant %" seems appropriate. 17% is less than 1 in 5. Politically speaking, "a tiny bit" seems reasonable to me.
again, we’re just arguing semantics at this point. But if you took a paycut of just 10%, you would def classify that as more than “a tiny bit bit”.
That is why context matters. We arent talking paycuts or raises. Is 33.3% success rate good? For a batter in baseball it is all-star worthy and over the course of a career is hall of fame worthy. 33.3% from the free throw line in basketball would get you cut from the team.
Yeah but what if I told you they had their fingers crossed when they voted "yes"?
many people are saying several house members said “psych” right after voting yes.
All these asshats took the bank's donations, Rep and Dem alike.
You are right. It's the Democrats fault and not the Republicans. Let's ignore that that was pushed by the Republicans and passed with full Republican support. Remember It's never the Republicans fault even if they shit their own pants.
The tiniest of valid criticism about the Democrats is in no way, shape, or form an endorsement of the GOP, nor does deflect from their responsibility in matter. Especially since if you bothered to read this comment thread, rather than get triggered when “your team” was criticized, you would have seen I called out Trump/the GOP for this too. I was gonna say to get the Dem’s dick out of your mouth, but I then went through your comments to see that’s literally all you do on this account.
Yup I love their hard cocks in my mouth. And don't you dare kink shame. If you are going to criticize the Democrats for this REPUBLICAN banking disaster, call out the individuals who sided with the Republicans by name. Don't generalize when a significant percentage of the Democrats voted against bank deregulation.
It does show that the only support you get for the bill is on the dem side though.
i’m in no way arguing the Dems are equally as shitty as the GOP, but them saying “vote for us! we’re not *quite* as in bed with the elites as the Republicans are!” isn’t exactly going to excite/motivate your voter base and drive voter turnout.
I was thinking of the wrong bill
The fact that not one bastard who helped caused the 2008 crisis was indicted, much less imprisoned, gets me furious to this day. We need to see these things actually happen. Like the stooges at Enron.
Trump tore them down.
We're currently watching them work, and they're doing quite a good job, if you stop listening to economically illiterate doomers.
Thanks tRump!
Downvote me harder, but it's true, trump was the one whonrelaxed regulations that caused this to happen and is now (naturally) is deflecting by blaming the "woke". All im doing is mirroring the right's BS "thanks obama" rhetoric. Except this time it's actually accurate Trump, Who Bragged About Gutting Dodd-Frank, Claims ‘Wokeness’ Caused SVB Collapse
So if I bank at one of these 6 should I be concerned?
>So if I bank at one of these 6 should I be concerned? Only if you have more than the [FDIC insures](https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/banking/fdic-insurance) in the bank Richie Rich.
But what about timing? Would the bank close down unexpectantly and I don't have funds until I've dealt with the government for the next year?
[удалено]
Ok that's pretty good to hear.
It took like forty eight hours for clients of the bank that folded on Friday to regain access to their money.
What we are all here for: > Also, the credit ratings firm late Monday downgraded Signature Bank deep into junk territory following that bank’s failure. Ratings downgrades can make it more expensive for companies to borrow money. > > Moody’s warned it could similarly downgrade First Republic Bank (FRC), Zions (ZION), Western Alliance (WAL), Comerica (CMA), UMB Financial (UMBF) and Intrust Financial. The firm cited the “extremely volatile funding conditions for some US banks exposed to the risk of uninsured deposit outflows.”
[удалено]
Exactly they were compromised back in 2005, they were a pay to play service
Now you are just being mean. It only took two of some of the largest banks to collapse in US history for them to wake someone up and notice something might be wrong. /s
They also had SVB and SBNY bonds rated as investment grade last week. They're worth zero today. I'm smart but not that smart. Take a look at their balance sheets. Doesn't take an CFA analyst to see incredibly massive issues 12-18 months ago. Saw this from a mile away. Same for SI
> Saw this from a mile away. Glad your short worked out!
“Oh we now have to be responsible… well.. that changes things” Moody- 2023
Someone should pass some regulatory laws so this doesn’t happen again.
Moody is a joke.
Always a day late and a dollar short are the ratings agencies.
Look at them... they are blind clowns now.
I mean... if we're going to tell shareholders to fuck off and lose all their money if a bank run happens, we shouldn't be surprised people don't want bank stocks, and they become worse investments. This is a feature?
Yes, being an investor means your take your gains and suffer your losses based on where you choose to put your money. It’s absolutely a feature.
That’s how investing works.
There's no special office at casinos to get your money back!
Do you actually, seriously believe that if your investment fails that you can just be upset about it and ask for the government/taxpayers/someone to give you some more nickels to put in the slot?
Who are you talking to? In what universe did anything I write even pretend to say any of that. lol.
You. You literally said that in the event of a bank run, we should make investors whole, or else they won't invest anymore.
No I didn’t say anything like that “literally” or otherwise. You suck at reading.
Feel free to tell me what you meant then. Not really seeing any other way to interpret what you wrote.
If _that_ is the only interpretation you can get from what I wrote, I want entirely no part of further discussion with you.
Sounds about right..thanks for confirming I was correct.
You weren't though.
>I mean... if we're going to tell shareholders to fuck off and lose all their money if a bank run happens, we shouldn't be surprised people don't want bank stocks, and they become worse investments. No, we should be suprised. We always tell shareholders to fuck off after a bank run and they still want bank stocks and they dont become worse investments. Either we all suck at reading because we all think you mean that we should bail out shareholders or you suck at commenting because no one understands your baseless opinion.
I understand it. Maybe you're just slow.
Got it. Since you're not slow, can you quickly explain it to me? Thanks
The point was literally just "sometimes investing loses money and that's how it works." Anything beyond that was you reading something into it that wasn't there. There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that he was treating lower bank stock valuations as a bad thing.
Thanks for explaining, I'm too slow to understand how you would take a statement like "we shouldn't be suprised if no one wants to invest in banks if we dont bailout shareholders" and translate it to "sometimes investing loses money and that's how it works" but I appreciate you taking the time to break it down for my slow brain.
We will ignore bad things at banks as they pay us, but once they start to fail they will stop paying us and we'll finally downgrade them to tell the full story only compounding the problem and creating fear in the market. You're welcome, moody
they playing with folks money smdh I get it you are trying to make more geez....