"Logarithmic decay is like how Hemingway famously described going bankrupt in The Sun Also Rises– “Gradually, then suddenly.”"
Yeah, read that article a while ago. Has been seen in the past, around the world. Things slowly get worse, and then a tipping point comes and chaos reigns. Reichstag fire, etc., revolutons, etc. Are we exempt?
And JP Morgan exerts a huge amount of influence in the banking sector, just like they did 120 years, before the creation of the Fed! Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
The government needs to let these banks fail. When the economy dumps I can already hear the the anger that will be aimed at capitalism. But this is not capitalism! Let the market do the work.
@Crusty said:
The government needs to let these banks fail. When the economy dumps I can already hear the the anger that will be aimed at capitalism. But this is not capitalism! Let the market do the work.
The stockholders, preferred stockholders, and bond holders lost 100% of their investments.
And JP Morgan exerts a huge amount of influence in the banking sector, just like they did 120 years, before the creation of the Fed! Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
Who should have influence in the banking sector....Liz Warren ? Bernie Sanders ? People who never worked in a bank or the private sector ?
Who should have influence in the banking sector....Liz Warren ? Bernie Sanders ? People who never worked in a bank or the private sector ?
how about the consumers of both the bank's services and the bank's stock. A central bank should only serve as a regulatory agency when it comes to individual banks. Liz Warren & Bernie Sanders should focus their energy on regulating the central bank's reach.
@Crusty said:
The government needs to let these banks fail. When the economy dumps I can already hear the the anger that will be aimed at capitalism. But this is not capitalism! Let the market do the work.
The stockholders, preferred stockholders, and bond holders lost 100% of their investments.
You think the market didn't work ?
No! The market was not allowed to “work”. If it had the depositors would have lost everything over the 250k. JP Morgan would not have gotten a sweetheart deal with a loss share transaction on single family, residential and commercial loans. They buy up the good stuff for pennies on the dollar and don’t take on the full risk they should have to because the upcoming losses on the bad stuff will be subsidized by the FDIC. Now JP Morgan controls more than 10% of all US deposits which is supposed to be against the law. But regulators have made an exception for. Disgusting!
@Crusty said:
The government needs to let these banks fail. When the economy dumps I can already hear the the anger that will be aimed at capitalism. But this is not capitalism! Let the market do the work.
The stockholders, preferred stockholders, and bond holders lost 100% of their investments.
You think the market didn't work ?
No! The market was not allowed to “work”. If it had the depositors would have lost everything over the 250k.
Do if someone has $10 million where should they put the cash?
How about small 200 person company with a $500k weekly payroll?
How about someone who just sold a property for $1 million?
All of those deposits would be at risk? And knowing this is a possibility, what would the wealthy individual do, what would the small company owner do, how would someone settle a large transaction?
@Crusty said:
The government needs to let these banks fail. When the economy dumps I can already hear the the anger that will be aimed at capitalism. But this is not capitalism! Let the market do the work.
The stockholders, preferred stockholders, and bond holders lost 100% of their investments.
You think the market didn't work ?
No! The market was not allowed to “work”. If it had the depositors would have lost everything over the 250k.
Do if someone has $10 million where should they put the cash?
How about small 200 person company with a $500k weekly payroll?
How about someone who just sold a property for $1 million?
All of those deposits would be at risk? And knowing this is a possibility, what would the wealthy individual do, what would the small company owner do, how would someone settle a large transaction?
Wealthy individuals should do just like anyone else would have to do. Actually study the banks, decide for themselves who is most responsible and whoever earns their trust gets the business.
@Crusty said:
The government needs to let these banks fail. When the economy dumps I can already hear the the anger that will be aimed at capitalism. But this is not capitalism! Let the market do the work.
The stockholders, preferred stockholders, and bond holders lost 100% of their investments.
You think the market didn't work ?
No! The market was not allowed to “work”. If it had the depositors would have lost everything over the 250k.
Do if someone has $10 million where should they put the cash?
How about small 200 person company with a $500k weekly payroll?
How about someone who just sold a property for $1 million?
All of those deposits would be at risk? And knowing this is a possibility, what would the wealthy individual do, what would the small company owner do, how would someone settle a large transaction?
Wealthy individuals should do just like anyone else would have to do. Actually study the banks, decide for themselves who is most responsible and whoever earns their trust gets the business.
And how would one go about doing that? You think folk are capable of reading a financial statement? You think they know what questions to ask? Are they going to question every loan the bank makes?
Your thought sounds good on paper, but impossible for most.
@Crusty said:
The government needs to let these banks fail. When the economy dumps I can already hear the the anger that will be aimed at capitalism. But this is not capitalism! Let the market do the work.
The stockholders, preferred stockholders, and bond holders lost 100% of their investments.
You think the market didn't work ?
No! The market was not allowed to “work”. If it had the depositors would have lost everything over the 250k.
Do if someone has $10 million where should they put the cash?
How about small 200 person company with a $500k weekly payroll?
How about someone who just sold a property for $1 million?
All of those deposits would be at risk? And knowing this is a possibility, what would the wealthy individual do, what would the small company owner do, how would someone settle a large transaction?
Wealthy individuals should do just like anyone else would have to do. Actually study the banks, decide for themselves who is most responsible and whoever earns their trust gets the business.
And how would one go about doing that? You think folk are capable of reading a financial statement? You think they know what questions to ask? Are they going to question every loan the bank makes?
Your thought sounds good on paper, but impossible for most.
If there was no FDIC insurance and no chance of the government bailing the banks/depositors out. I think it would incentivize the population to learn.
how about the consumers of both the bank's services and the bank's stock. A central bank should only serve as a regulatory agency when it comes to individual banks. Liz Warren & Bernie Sanders should focus their energy on regulating the central bank's reach.
Why does a consumer of a bank's service get to tell it how to be run ? Do you get to tell your local service station or auto dealership how to do business ?
@Crusty said:
The government needs to let these banks fail. When the economy dumps I can already hear the the anger that
No! The market was not allowed to “work”. If it had the depositors would have lost everything over the 250k. JP Morgan would not have gotten a sweetheart deal with a loss share transaction on single family, residential and commercial loans. They buy up the good stuff for pennies on the dollar and don’t take on the full risk they should have to because the upcoming losses on the bad stuff will be subsidized by the FDIC. Now JP Morgan controls more than 10% of all US deposits which is supposed to be against the law. But regulators have made an exception for. Disgusting!
Without the exception, the FDIC/Treasury loses more $$$. So you'd like to stick it to the taxpayers to knock 3% off JPM's deposit growth ?
Why should depositors lose over $250,000 when there are no known credit losses ? The bank has assets sufficient to pay off all depositors and even some creditors, from what I have seen. They just can't do it this MONTH.
You overestimate the deal JPM is getting. I remind you they LOST $$$ on the Bear Stearns deal which was begged on them by the Treasury.
You're not getting the whole picture. You're getting 3rd-hand reports from people without a financial background. Like getting medical advice from a garage mechanic.
@Crusty said:
Wealthy individuals should do just like anyone else would have to do. Actually study the banks, decide for themselves who is most responsible and whoever earns their trust gets the business.
Can't be done. Too hard. I have 2 financial degrees and it takes me HOURS to analyze -- and I still get it wrong 30% of the time. You think people walking into banks are doing balance sheet analysis ?
If it was done.....the wealthy and corporations would yank their $$$ from any bank engaging in "risky loans" to small businesses, at-risk groups, the inner cities, etc. No more CRA lending...no more loans for low-income individuals. That money is no longer on-deposit....it's in Treasuries or MMFs.
@bidask said:
I personally met Jamie Dimon 3 times my career.
By far the smartest banker in the world I have always believed that and his bank is the only one I own.
Met him once in a restaurant....left early to buy Bear Stearns.
Tax payers should not have to be burdened with any of this fall out. I don’t want the government involved at all. The banking relationship should be between the bank and the customer. All the risk/reward should be kept between the two parties. The same way it was thousands of years ago.
The banks can’t come up with the funds so they should go belly up. They already got a lifeline of 30billion and without that they would only have 15billion in deposits. They are out of control and deserve to go down.
They lost money on bear sterns that was begged in them by the government…. Add it to the list of reasons for government to not get involved.
You have 2 degrees…. Happy for you! The public is pretty dumbed down and most are more interested in the latest pop music entertainer. Don’t have much faith in them to do much of anything. The good thing is in todays world word of mouth travels fast and I’m sure crappy banks would be called out and the better banks would be rewarded by word of mouth. Not everyone has to read the financial report. But those that find it important enough could.
The last thing low income people need is to take on more credit/loans! I won’t loose sleep if they are not allowed to take on more debt.
Do if someone has $10 million where should they put the cash?
How about small 200 person company with a $500k weekly payroll?
How about someone who just sold a property for $1 million?
All of those deposits would be at risk? And knowing this is a possibility, what would the wealthy individual do, what would the small company owner do, how would someone settle a large transaction?
I am good friends with someone who worked at Merrill Lynch who handled this issue for large net worth individuals. She helped clients break up investments in CDs so that they were fully FDIC insured. That was when FDIC covered $100K. Part of maintaining wealth is being smart or hiring smart folks so you can keep it.
When they have to change the rules for rich depositors over $250,000 on the spur of the moment, just how is the "market" working? That's not a market at work. That's cronyism at its worst.
Can't be done. Too hard. I have 2 financial degrees and it takes me HOURS to analyze -- and I still get it wrong 30% of the time. You think people walking into banks are doing balance sheet analysis ?
Serious Question - What makes it too hard? The bogus complexity of the rigged financial system? Your thoughts?
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
how about the consumers of both the bank's services and the bank's stock. A central bank should only serve as a regulatory agency when it comes to individual banks. Liz Warren & Bernie Sanders should focus their energy on regulating the central bank's reach.
Why does a consumer of a bank's service get to tell it how to be run ? Do you get to tell your local service station or auto dealership how to do business ?
we tell them every day when we vote with our wallet.
If you don't believe businesses listen to wallet voters just ask Bud Light.
@Crusty said: @GoldFinger1969 -
Tax payers should not have to be burdened with any of this fall out. I don’t want the government involved at all. The banking relationship should be between the bank and the customer. All the risk/reward should be kept between the two parties. The same way it was thousands of years ago.
Sorry, it's 2023. Banks are multi-trillion dollar collusseses. The risk is with the shareholders and bondholders. But that doesn't mean the government can't or shouldn't make sure things are stable and avoid systemic risk.
The banks can’t come up with the funds so they should go belly up. They already got a lifeline of 30billion and without that they would only have 15billion in deposits. They are out of control and deserve to go down.
FRB was bought, not sure what you are upset about.
The government should not be involved in picking winners and losers the market should.
FRB was bought. That’s not what pisses me off. I just hate that it was handed to another bank in a sweetheart deal. I can’t stand the fact that the losses will be shared while they reap the benefits of the best parts of the company for pennies on the dollar.
Not to disrupt your guys discussion but this guy is bullish
This guy stoped by for a drink just after we left Martinville for the year. Was back up there last weekend getting cow camp ready. And checked a few cams
@Crusty said: @GoldFinger1969
The government should not be involved in picking winners and losers the market should.
FRB was bought. That’s not what pisses me off. I just hate that it was handed to another bank in a sweetheart deal. I can’t stand the fact that the losses will be shared while they reap the benefits of the best parts of the company for pennies on the dollar.
Very few banks could take them on. It was basically only JPM....Citibank has their own problems....Wells is still under Fed supervision....BOA has capital issues of their own. Nobody outside The Big Four could take on this risk.
It was either JP Morgan Chase or Liz Warren and her cronies in Washington. Who do you want then ?
@Crusty said: @GoldFinger1969 -
Tax payers should not have to be burdened with any of this fall out. I don’t want the government involved at all. The banking relationship should be between the bank and the customer. All the risk/reward should be kept between the two parties. The same way it was thousands of years ago.
Sorry, it's 2023. Banks are multi-trillion dollar collusseses. The risk is with the shareholders and bondholders. But that doesn't mean the government can't or shouldn't make sure things are stable and avoid systemic risk.
The banks can’t come up with the funds so they should go belly up. They already got a lifeline of 30billion and without that they would only have 15billion in deposits. They are out of control and deserve to go down.
FRB was bought, not sure what you are upset about.
"And so, the Fed delivered the ultimate 1-2 punch to the U.S. regional banking system. The first punch was it ignored inflation to the point that the banks were sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of (US Bond) losses. However, the KO punch was the Fed raised rates aggressively, which resulted in depositors pulling money out of the banks in search of higher returns on their cash."
"And so, the Fed delivered the ultimate 1-2 punch to the U.S. regional banking system. The first punch was it ignored inflation to the point that the banks were sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of (US Bond) losses. However, the KO punch was the Fed raised rates aggressively, which resulted in depositors pulling money out of the banks in search of higher returns on their cash."
So they wanted rates raised SOONER ? Those 2 sentences are at loggerheads.
"And so, the Fed delivered the ultimate 1-2 punch to the U.S. regional banking system. The first punch was it ignored inflation to the point that the banks were sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of (US Bond) losses. However, the KO punch was the Fed raised rates aggressively, which resulted in depositors pulling money out of the banks in search of higher returns on their cash."
So they wanted rates raised SOONER ? Those 2 sentences are at loggerheads.
Read them a few times, they will start to make sense.
And now another bank is in the news. Just being in the news that they need to raise cash.... almost assures a bank run and failure. More dominos falling.... will they stop or keep going?
"The 2008 global financial crisis hit an acute stage on September 15, 2008, when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. But it began 18 months earlier in the spring of 2007 when HSBC warned about losses on subprime mortgages. The Russia-LTCM crisis reached an acute stage in September 1998, but it began 15 months earlier in June 1997 when Thailand devalued its currency against the dollar. In six major financial crises between 1974 and 2010, the average time between the origin of the crisis and the acute stage was 13.5 months, and the shortest time was 6 months."
"The bottom line is that we are facing a severe recession, a financial crisis worse than 2008, de-dollarization, lost confidence in the Fed and the U.S. dollar, political repression through the rise of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and extreme social unrest. The winners in this scenario are gold, silver, land, energy, agriculture, and U.S. Treasury notes. The losers are stocks, corporate bonds, and commercial real estate."
@derryb said:
Are we already in the next major crisis?
Jim Rickards reminds us:
"The 2008 global financial crisis hit an acute stage on September 15, 2008, when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. But it began 18 months earlier in the spring of 2007 when HSBC warned about losses on subprime mortgages. The Russia-LTCM crisis reached an acute stage in September 1998, but it began 15 months earlier in June 1997 when Thailand devalued its currency against the dollar. In six major financial crises between 1974 and 2010, the average time between the origin of the crisis and the acute stage was 13.5 months, and the shortest time was 6 months."
"The bottom line is that we are facing a severe recession, a financial crisis worse than 2008, de-dollarization, lost confidence in the Fed and the U.S. dollar, political repression through the rise of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and extreme social unrest. The winners in this scenario are gold, silver, land, energy, agriculture, and U.S. Treasury notes. The losers are stocks, corporate bonds, and commercial real estate."
The guy is a clown. How's his portfolio done the last 5-15 years for his clients ? He bought the March 2020 low, right ?
Another carnival barker who wants to be a stopped clock. No thanks....and nobody here should be paying attention to this perma-bear who lacks basic financial understanding.
@derryb said:
Are we already in the next major crisis?
Jim Rickards reminds us:
"The 2008 global financial crisis hit an acute stage on September 15, 2008, when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. But it began 18 months earlier in the spring of 2007 when HSBC warned about losses on subprime mortgages. The Russia-LTCM crisis reached an acute stage in September 1998, but it began 15 months earlier in June 1997 when Thailand devalued its currency against the dollar. In six major financial crises between 1974 and 2010, the average time between the origin of the crisis and the acute stage was 13.5 months, and the shortest time was 6 months."
"The bottom line is that we are facing a severe recession, a financial crisis worse than 2008, de-dollarization, lost confidence in the Fed and the U.S. dollar, political repression through the rise of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and extreme social unrest. The winners in this scenario are gold, silver, land, energy, agriculture, and U.S. Treasury notes. The losers are stocks, corporate bonds, and commercial real estate."
The guy is a clown. How's his portfolio done the last 5-15 years for his clients ? He bought the March 2020 low, right ?
Another carnival barker who wants to be a stopped clock. No thanks....and nobody here should be paying attention to this perma-bear who lacks basic financial understanding.
Comments
Yeah, read that article a while ago. Has been seen in the past, around the world. Things slowly get worse, and then a tipping point comes and chaos reigns. Reichstag fire, etc., revolutons, etc. Are we exempt?
and another one bites the dust
and another gone, another gone, another one bites the dust
HEY, IT'S GONNA GET YOU TOO
Loves me some shiny!
@carew4me said: "and another one bites the dust"
And JP Morgan exerts a huge amount of influence in the banking sector, just like they did 120 years, before the creation of the Fed! Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
The government needs to let these banks fail. When the economy dumps I can already hear the the anger that will be aimed at capitalism. But this is not capitalism! Let the market do the work.
The stockholders, preferred stockholders, and bond holders lost 100% of their investments.
You think the market didn't work ?
Who should have influence in the banking sector....Liz Warren ? Bernie Sanders ? People who never worked in a bank or the private sector ?
how about the consumers of both the bank's services and the bank's stock. A central bank should only serve as a regulatory agency when it comes to individual banks. Liz Warren & Bernie Sanders should focus their energy on regulating the central bank's reach.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
No! The market was not allowed to “work”. If it had the depositors would have lost everything over the 250k. JP Morgan would not have gotten a sweetheart deal with a loss share transaction on single family, residential and commercial loans. They buy up the good stuff for pennies on the dollar and don’t take on the full risk they should have to because the upcoming losses on the bad stuff will be subsidized by the FDIC. Now JP Morgan controls more than 10% of all US deposits which is supposed to be against the law. But regulators have made an exception for. Disgusting!
cbdc's already rolling in Europe, they have a limit on what you can pay for in cash, they expect to be cashless in the near future
Do if someone has $10 million where should they put the cash?
How about small 200 person company with a $500k weekly payroll?
How about someone who just sold a property for $1 million?
All of those deposits would be at risk? And knowing this is a possibility, what would the wealthy individual do, what would the small company owner do, how would someone settle a large transaction?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Wealthy individuals should do just like anyone else would have to do. Actually study the banks, decide for themselves who is most responsible and whoever earns their trust gets the business.
And how would one go about doing that? You think folk are capable of reading a financial statement? You think they know what questions to ask? Are they going to question every loan the bank makes?
Your thought sounds good on paper, but impossible for most.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
If there was no FDIC insurance and no chance of the government bailing the banks/depositors out. I think it would incentivize the population to learn.
I personally met Jamie Dimon 3 times my career.
By far the smartest banker in the world I have always believed that and his bank is the only one I own.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Why does a consumer of a bank's service get to tell it how to be run ? Do you get to tell your local service station or auto dealership how to do business ?
Without the exception, the FDIC/Treasury loses more $$$. So you'd like to stick it to the taxpayers to knock 3% off JPM's deposit growth ?
Why should depositors lose over $250,000 when there are no known credit losses ? The bank has assets sufficient to pay off all depositors and even some creditors, from what I have seen. They just can't do it this MONTH.
You overestimate the deal JPM is getting. I remind you they LOST $$$ on the Bear Stearns deal which was begged on them by the Treasury.
You're not getting the whole picture. You're getting 3rd-hand reports from people without a financial background. Like getting medical advice from a garage mechanic.
Can't be done. Too hard. I have 2 financial degrees and it takes me HOURS to analyze -- and I still get it wrong 30% of the time. You think people walking into banks are doing balance sheet analysis ?
If it was done.....the wealthy and corporations would yank their $$$ from any bank engaging in "risky loans" to small businesses, at-risk groups, the inner cities, etc. No more CRA lending...no more loans for low-income individuals. That money is no longer on-deposit....it's in Treasuries or MMFs.
Ready to try that at any time.
Met him once in a restaurant....left early to buy Bear Stearns.
@GoldFinger1969 -
Tax payers should not have to be burdened with any of this fall out. I don’t want the government involved at all. The banking relationship should be between the bank and the customer. All the risk/reward should be kept between the two parties. The same way it was thousands of years ago.
The banks can’t come up with the funds so they should go belly up. They already got a lifeline of 30billion and without that they would only have 15billion in deposits. They are out of control and deserve to go down.
They lost money on bear sterns that was begged in them by the government…. Add it to the list of reasons for government to not get involved.
You have 2 degrees…. Happy for you! The public is pretty dumbed down and most are more interested in the latest pop music entertainer. Don’t have much faith in them to do much of anything. The good thing is in todays world word of mouth travels fast and I’m sure crappy banks would be called out and the better banks would be rewarded by word of mouth. Not everyone has to read the financial report. But those that find it important enough could.
The last thing low income people need is to take on more credit/loans! I won’t loose sleep if they are not allowed to take on more debt.
I am good friends with someone who worked at Merrill Lynch who handled this issue for large net worth individuals. She helped clients break up investments in CDs so that they were fully FDIC insured. That was when FDIC covered $100K. Part of maintaining wealth is being smart or hiring smart folks so you can keep it.
Businesses creates a different challenge.
You think the market didn't work ?
When they have to change the rules for rich depositors over $250,000 on the spur of the moment, just how is the "market" working? That's not a market at work. That's cronyism at its worst.
Can't be done. Too hard. I have 2 financial degrees and it takes me HOURS to analyze -- and I still get it wrong 30% of the time. You think people walking into banks are doing balance sheet analysis ?
Serious Question - What makes it too hard? The bogus complexity of the rigged financial system? Your thoughts?
I knew it would happen.
we tell them every day when we vote with our wallet.
If you don't believe businesses listen to wallet voters just ask Bud Light.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Yes, we can vote with our wallets... unfortunately, the financial system is a little harder to detach from. Where does one go?
Gold and Silver sure seems to be liking something today.... or scared money is talking.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
All the same, we take our chances.
Sorry, it's 2023. Banks are multi-trillion dollar collusseses. The risk is with the shareholders and bondholders. But that doesn't mean the government can't or shouldn't make sure things are stable and avoid systemic risk.
FRB was bought, not sure what you are upset about.
@GoldFinger1969
The government should not be involved in picking winners and losers the market should.
FRB was bought. That’s not what pisses me off. I just hate that it was handed to another bank in a sweetheart deal. I can’t stand the fact that the losses will be shared while they reap the benefits of the best parts of the company for pennies on the dollar.
Not to disrupt your guys discussion but this guy is bullish
This guy stoped by for a drink just after we left Martinville for the year. Was back up there last weekend getting cow camp ready. And checked a few cams
He doesn’t care about any banking disaster
Martin
Very few banks could take them on. It was basically only JPM....Citibank has their own problems....Wells is still under Fed supervision....BOA has capital issues of their own. Nobody outside The Big Four could take on this risk.
It was either JP Morgan Chase or Liz Warren and her cronies in Washington. Who do you want then ?
Correction: There's every reason that the banks should be broken up like ATT in the 1980s.
I knew it would happen.
AT&T was a monopoly in 90% of the country. There are 4,400 banks in the country.
FRB sale cost the FDIC $13 billion.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Why Regional Banks Are in Trouble
A good primer on why they are failing:
"And so, the Fed delivered the ultimate 1-2 punch to the U.S. regional banking system. The first punch was it ignored inflation to the point that the banks were sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of (US Bond) losses. However, the KO punch was the Fed raised rates aggressively, which resulted in depositors pulling money out of the banks in search of higher returns on their cash."
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
FRB sale cost the FDIC $13 billion.
I've seen other estimates. It was still the best option to sell to JPM.
So they wanted rates raised SOONER ? Those 2 sentences are at loggerheads.
Read them a few times, they will start to make sense.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
And now another bank is in the news. Just being in the news that they need to raise cash.... almost assures a bank run and failure. More dominos falling.... will they stop or keep going?
Got gold?
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1349337235636658?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&mibextid=0NULKw
These banks had incompetent portfolio and bond managers. They are getting what they deservel.
I should know, I've had dealings with them.
getting to be a bit contagious, eh? Maybe there's a mask to prevent it.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Multiple bank runs tonight.
I knew it would happen.
Appears the biggest (and valid) fear is that depositors will want to withdraw more cash than a bank has. Where did it go? LOL
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
It's loaned out. Ever see It's A Wonderful Life ?
These banks are experienceing what banks and S&L's did in the 1970's and 1980's: disintermediation and the end of Regulation Q.
Livestream Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting today 10am est on CNBC..
Let’s learn something from Warren and Charlie 🤓
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Rumor is that "Inverse Jim" Cramer will soon be in advertisements pumping the FDIC.
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
Cramer catches flak for his show, but his CNBC morning appearances are must-watch.
He compounded 20% at his hedge fund for 18 years. None of his critics can say that.
Are we already in the next major crisis?
Jim Rickards reminds us:
"The 2008 global financial crisis hit an acute stage on September 15, 2008, when Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy. But it began 18 months earlier in the spring of 2007 when HSBC warned about losses on subprime mortgages. The Russia-LTCM crisis reached an acute stage in September 1998, but it began 15 months earlier in June 1997 when Thailand devalued its currency against the dollar. In six major financial crises between 1974 and 2010, the average time between the origin of the crisis and the acute stage was 13.5 months, and the shortest time was 6 months."
"The bottom line is that we are facing a severe recession, a financial crisis worse than 2008, de-dollarization, lost confidence in the Fed and the U.S. dollar, political repression through the rise of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), and extreme social unrest. The winners in this scenario are gold, silver, land, energy, agriculture, and U.S. Treasury notes. The losers are stocks, corporate bonds, and commercial real estate."
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
The guy is a clown. How's his portfolio done the last 5-15 years for his clients ? He bought the March 2020 low, right ?
Another carnival barker who wants to be a stopped clock. No thanks....and nobody here should be paying attention to this perma-bear who lacks basic financial understanding.
And you have better credentials? LOL
Give Me Liberty or Give Me Debt
How about these credentials...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump
ROFL!!!
Knowledge is the enemy of fear