hasben
Resident Member
Posts: 1,022
|
Post by hasben on Mar 20, 2023 11:34:21 GMT -8
I Wish Them a Miserable Life Together. He has Made All of Our Lives Worse.
Even at ages 92 and 66 he will likely get more sex from his spouse than his ex-pal orange Don.
|
|
|
Post by sagobob on Mar 21, 2023 19:34:25 GMT -8
Maybe the Banking Situation Really is BadAt the end of last year U.S. banks were facing more than $600 billion of unrealized losses because of rising rates, federal regulators estimated. Those losses had the potential to chew through more than one-third of banks’ so-called capital buffers, which are meant to protect depositors from losses, according to Fitch Ratings. The thinner a bank’s capital buffers, the greater its customers’ risk of losing money and the more likely investors and customers are to flee. But the $600 billion figure, which accounted for a limited set of a bank’s assets, might understate the severity of the industry’s potential losses. This week alone, two separate groups of academics released papers estimating that banks were facing at least $1.7 trillion in potential losses. Monetary Tightening and U.S. Bank Fragility in 2023: Mark-to-Market Losses and Uninsured Depositor Runs? Why do banks invest in MBS? So, MBS's have come back to bite us in the azz again. And then there's SVB, which according to an article in the NYT: "Measuring by value, about 97 percent of its deposits were uninsured by the federal government, which made customers more likely to run at the first sign of trouble." And run they did. We need to go backwards and once again separate boring banking from investment banking. Boring bankers would collect savings, offer check accounts and credit cards, accounts up to $250K max. would be insured by the FDIC, and make loans backed by collateral. Investment banks would take risks with their own money, either with in-house capital, or raise it by an offering. There would be no FDIC coverage of any losses.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Mar 22, 2023 8:55:06 GMT -8
Maybe the Banking Situation Really is BadAt the end of last year U.S. banks were facing more than $600 billion of unrealized losses because of rising rates, federal regulators estimated. Those losses had the potential to chew through more than one-third of banks’ so-called capital buffers, which are meant to protect depositors from losses, according to Fitch Ratings. The thinner a bank’s capital buffers, the greater its customers’ risk of losing money and the more likely investors and customers are to flee. But the $600 billion figure, which accounted for a limited set of a bank’s assets, might understate the severity of the industry’s potential losses. This week alone, two separate groups of academics released papers estimating that banks were facing at least $1.7 trillion in potential losses. Monetary Tightening and U.S. Bank Fragility in 2023: Mark-to-Market Losses and Uninsured Depositor Runs? Why do banks invest in MBS? So, MBS's have come back to bite us in the azz again. And then there's SVB, which according to an article in the NYT: "Measuring by value, about 97 percent of its deposits were uninsured by the federal government, which made customers more likely to run at the first sign of trouble." And run they did. We need to go backwards and once again separate boring banking from investment banking. Boring bankers would collect savings, offer check accounts and credit cards, accounts up to $250K max. would be insured by the FDIC, and make loans backed by collateral. Investment banks would take risks with their own money, either with in-house capital, or raise it by an offering. There would be no FDIC coverage of any losses. Unfortunately, banks are among the oldest and most-successful lobbying groups in DC. Bank reform is REALLY hard. Not only do you have the QOP in charge of the house, but there are some Democratic Senators firmly in the pocket of the banking industry, including our old friends Manchin and Sinema.
|
|