Ah-so
-
Posts
9,042 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ah-so
-
-
2 hours ago, zugzwang said:
The Chinese pegged yuan to the USD 1985. If it's low by international standards that's because the dollar has slumped in value.
Not entirely accurate from what I can see:
https://www.macrotrends.net/2575/us-dollar-yuan-exchange-rate-historical-chart
-
10 hours ago, zugzwang said:
Coma Joe said everything is fine and the Fed will provide liquidity.
It's really cute seeing people use MAGA loon turns of phrase on a British website
-
56 minutes ago, Quicken said:
SNB to provide Credit Suisse with liquidity if needed
Newsflash: The Swiss National Bank has pledged to provide Credit Suisse with liquidity, if needed.
The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA and the Swiss National Bank have asserted that “the problems of certain banks in the USA do not pose a direct risk of contagion for the Swiss financial markets”.
In a joint statement, after a day of chaos in the financial markets, FINMA and the SNB say:
The strict capital and liquidity requirements applicable to Swiss financial institutions ensure their stability.
Credit Suisse meets the capital and liquidity requirements imposed on systemically important banks. If necessary, the SNB will provide CS with liquidity.
FINMA and the SNB add that there are “no indications of a direct risk of contagion for Swiss institutions due to the current turmoil in the US banking market”.
Regulation in Switzerland requires all banks to maintain capital and liquidity buffers that meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Basel standards.
Furthermore, systemically important banks have to meet higher capital and liquidity requirements. This allows negative effects of major crises and shocks to be absorbed.
https://www.snb.ch/en/mmr/reference/pre_20230315/source/pre_20230315.en.pdf
FINMA really only cares about the domestic retail bank and the wealth management arm. It doesn't care what happens to the investment bank as long as those bits survive.
-
1 hour ago, BaldED said:
Oh you're now a banking insolvency expert now. Idiot.
Yes, I am. Someone has to be.
-
11 hours ago, Brendan110_0 said:
I've seen the opposite is true, the original workers which brought success are hastily replaced/managed out for shiny new managers who talk the talk but then fritter money away on crazy gambles which accelerates the demise of said company.
I don't think that these are necessarily mutually exclusive factors. But yes, the incoming-MBA can equally mess things up. But Jesus, get someone in who knows the basics of liquidity risk management, rather than someone who scraped through their accounting exams and had to join a start-up on a pittance and got lucky.
-
4 minutes ago, Trampa501 said:
Hopefully, people are starting to see that Musk isn't an outlier. He exists precisely because the Silicon Valley economy is corrupted by libertarian ideology. Republicans are trying to distract from this fact, making silly claims that SVB was a "woke" bank, whatever that means. It's all a ruse to confuse the public about the fundamental reality of this situation: Conservative economic theories don't work.
Yep - predicted long ago, albeit from a right-wing stand-point:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sovereign-Individual-James-Dale-Davidson/dp/0684832720
-
11 hours ago, scottbeard said:
It's both isn't it - it takes a special kind of person to be able to both run and expand a 5-man team from a garage, and manage a multi-billion dollar corporation, and cope with everything in between. The Steve Jobs etc of this world are very rare.
Yes, they end up with that founder's halo of the original team, with millions of share options, but often for someone in finance, they were just in the right place at the right time. And when it comes to preparing a liquidity management policy for Big Startup.com, it doesn't occur to them to do anything with it that leave it with their bank.
Similar in some ways to how local councils got attracted by the big rewards on offer at Icelandic Banks, without ever thinking to ask why their interest rates were so high. People in control of a lot of cash without the necessary skills and experience.
-
3 hours ago, captainb said:
Agreed. There's some terrible treasury management by some of them. 2billion on deposit with only one banking relationship being the worst example.
But regardless they don't deserve to fold over a liquidity crunch at their bank..
I agree. I don't know how these people were ever allowed near a treasury team.
I think that a lot of these start-ups carry the initial staff beyond their level of incompetence. They've banked with SVB since the start and when it grew, they never got replaced with someone more competent.
This is a typical problem at a lot of fast growing companies.
-
4 hours ago, captainb said:
Bank specialised in early stage tech firms.
They tend to have more cash on deposit than most as by their nature they have a cash burn, so can't just have limited in cash and profitably trade .
Their VC backers who whatever people say on here tend to be more in tune with financial market announcements than Mrs miggins.. let them know to remove funds following bond sale at a loss
Don't think it's a conspiracy anymore than notion that it's a bad thing to protect bank deposits. Very odd.
Correct. The nature of these tech firms is that they require a lot of money to get started, so the investor venture capitalists raise money from a mixture of investors in their funds and bank borrowing. The startups can therefore sit in relatively large lump sums after each round of dund raising.
-
5 hours ago, voy-por said:
He's wise - not that many people do know what's going on.
-
7 hours ago, BaldED said:
Nouriel Roubini "This is QE via the backdoor"
A guy who clearly is too dumb to understand.
Clever guy, but I think I know more on the topic of bank insolvency management than he does.
-
4 minutes ago, voy-por said:
SVB depositors above the insured limit failed to use market-based risk mitigation solutions for excess deposits like, for example, MaxSafe or using a different bank, CMAs, CDARS, etc. It's a bailout, you're just too dumb to understand.
The thing is, SVB is not capital insolvent, only liquidity insolvent. The authorities could have let the market take its course and withheld funds from these companies for the period it takes to work through the insolvency, while letting hundreds of companies go bust and their employees without any money, or temporarily make funding available.
This is very different to the transfer of capital that occurred in the GFC. That was an effective permanent gift of money, not just making sure that the system keeps ticking over on a temporary basis.
But your too dumb to understand.
-
3 minutes ago, BaldED said:
So it is a bailout then. Glad we agree.
No. I have made a small edit for clarity.
-
11 minutes ago, BaldED said:
Lol pi$$ off. 😆
LOL. You are obviously one of the group that lime most of us, was outraged that bank shareholders and bond holders got bailed out in the financial crisis 2008.
And now that they aren't being bailed out, but being bailed-in you are outraged that customers aren't losing everything, that people are getting paid, suppliers are getting paid, people are putting food on the table.
Basically you just want destruction and financial meltdown to satisfy some irrational economic blood lust. Is it so that you can say, "I told you so"?
-
1 minute ago, BaldED said:
Get bailed out, take no responibility and the irresponsible indebted come away laughing on to the next scheme.
And you wonder why he's angry? F**k me.
Where's the bail out?
-
5 hours ago, 70PC said:
Venture capital companies caused the run on the bank. They all told their investments to pull their money out.
That shows that the bank had a massive vulnerability to a small number of counterparties.
While bank runs are often illogical, it is illogical not to participate in one once it begins.
It's a good example of game theory and the prisoners ' dilemma.
-
15 hours ago, Warlord said:
IT'S A $7 TRILLION BAILOUT!!!!
This is because the Fed are now backstopping ALL the deposits so an implied bailout of $7 trillion .
This is criminal on a HUGE scale!
Schiff posted the numbers. Please comment
How dare they seek to stave of a financial collapse!!
Am loving the concept of an "implied bail out".
So we've had an event whereby the shareholders and bondholders have been bailed-in and lost their shirts, and the customers protected, without the use of public money, and still it makes you angry. I guess only the sight of collapsing banks and ruined customers will make you happy.
-
3 minutes ago, rantnrave said:
Main news item on CNN. Live feed here:
https://edition.cnn.com/business/live-news/silicon-valley-bank-collapse-updates-03-13-23/index.htmlTreasury yields, meanwhile, have receded to historic lows — 2-year notes have fallen more than 100 points since Wednesday and are on track to notch their largest three-day drop since Black Monday in October 1987 — as Wall Street worries about about the economic and market fallout of the bank failures.
Ironically, the collapse in US Treasury yields might have reversed the losses that caused SVB to lose money in the first place.
😄
-
5 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:
U.S. Regional Bank Stocks Now:
1. Western Alliance, $WAL: -75%
2. First Republic, $FRC: -65%
3. Zions Bancorp, $ZION: -43%
4. PacWest, $PACW: -41%
5. Comerica, $CMA: -33%
6. Fifth Third, $FITB: -20%
Marketwatch - flight of deposits from the regional banks to the megabanks that are too big to fail:
Looks like the big boys are licking their lips. Huge amounts of customers and deposits and the Fed has got their backs with unlimited capital.
It will be bad for the economy if we just end up with a handful of megabanks in control of everything. The US has arguably too many banks, but the collapse of small and challenger banks will be bad news for everyone, other than the big banks.
-
1 hour ago, Sour Mash said:
Bah - What does risk assessment have to do with a bank collapsing, you misogynistic racist!? 🤣🤡
Clearly the bank collapsed because of the patriarchy and white privilege.
Do you really think that someone in middle management in the small London subsidiary would be responsible for monitoring the $200bn dollar balance sheet of the head office?
Obviously not. So why did the Daily Mail focus on someone who clearly isn't responsible, when the people actually responsible are every easy to identify i.e. Group CEO, Group CFO, Group Treasurer, Group CRO, and Group Head of financial risk management.
But even those people in risk still are ultimately told what to do by the CEO - they can't overrule him.
So, perhaps I should ask again, why did the Mail ignore the people who would have been responsible, and instead target someone who is very unlikely to have been responsible, but who happens to be a a female, gay, ethnic minority? 🤔
-
20 minutes ago, 24gray24 said:
Wasn't she in charge of something like assessing risk?
Yes. Of the London subsidiary - an entity that's apparently pretty tiny and she's not even the UK CRO, and would rank below the UK head of credit risk in terms of status She wouldn't have been responsible for risk for the Group as a whole, setting Group wide risk appetite or making investment decisions.
Risk is always owned by the front office - those making the decisions in the first place. Risk are second line - meant to be a sense check a d challenge, but not bearing ultimate responsibility. And as I said already, the actions of the head office investment team are every u likely to have fallen under the remit of a risk manager in a small regional subsidiary.
-
31 minutes ago, captainb said:
I'm surprised they didn't blame "the boat people" or RNLI
It does sound like a headline from the Daily Mail Headline Generator site. "Are woke lesbians destroying our banks?"
-
49 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:
Because it gets clicks. Who are you blaming, since you know all about it?
I'm blaming the racist, sexist, misogynistic Daily Mail, if it wasn't already implicitly obvious to you. And great, they get "clicks" by ******ing over someone who's probably barely involved, while ignoring the people who would be directly responsible - the CFO and Group Treasurer. That justifies it, then.
-
2 hours ago, PeanutButter said:
This was posted already. The Daily Mail has trawled LinkedIn and the internet to find someone to blame. Someone who works for the new non-systemic UK banking subsidiary and who wouldn't even have been the most senior risk person in London, let alone being in charge of the investment decisions of the head office Treasury.
So I'll ask again, why did the DM highlight the role of a female, Asian gay individual despite her likely having no connection to this bank failure?
Banking shares COLLAPSE - Is it happening?
in House prices and the economy
Posted
And therefore, by definition, someone is buying gold.