List of 10 Banks that raised similar red margin flags to those of SVB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t the Feds basically say they will cover all depositors without limit? Why does anyone care?

No? The fed said specifically that that’s not what’s happening. SVB had enough from the sales of its securities to cover deposits.

This is inaccurate. The securities still sit on the balance sheet of the receiver bank. It will take some time to see if recoveries from SVB's assets (dominated by securities) will be sufficient to pay off all the depositors, insured and uninsured. If not, there will be an assessment on banks.

So where did the cash come from if it was not the banks securities and the govt did not bail out? All depositors were made whole today.

All the other banks in the US and their customers are bailing out SVB depositors.

Not the “taxpayer”.

So, most taxpayers who have relationships with banks.

Or have banks in their 401(k) index funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yawn

Whistle past the graveyard if you must...

My accounts at one of the banks on this list are well below the $250,000 FDIC insurance limit, so I'm really not at all worried about what would happen even in the somewhat unlikely event that it did fail. The same bank holds my mortgage, so who knows, maybe I'll get lucky and whoever buys their assets out of receivership will forget about me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sandy Spring Bank is on the list - can someone please tell me what this really means. Talk to me like I'm in 5th grade:

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20230311312/20-banks-that-are-sitting-on-huge-potential-securities-lossesas-was-svb

Luckily this link is broken, but articles like this are so irresponsible. Like yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sandy Spring Bank is on the list - can someone please tell me what this really means. Talk to me like I'm in 5th grade:

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20230311312/20-banks-that-are-sitting-on-huge-potential-securities-lossesas-was-svb

Luckily this link is broken, but articles like this are so irresponsible. Like yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Interesting...
NP
I clicked on the link much earlier this morning and it was working then.
The article was very little substance. More akin to clickbait.
I agree it was irresponsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t the Feds basically say they will cover all depositors without limit? Why does anyone care?

This is a broader issue where the cancer can spread. There is a gigantic issue if the fed has to bail out multiple banks;”:

1 execution, fed is horrible at executing on anything
2.money coming out of the fed is indeed bottomless, but at a very heavy price
3.More bail outs will cause generational harm to our economy.

This is no minor issue, especially with our the self sabatoging misery porn they will just keep the cycle of panic going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yawn

Whistle past the graveyard if you must...

My accounts at one of the banks on this list are well below the $250,000 FDIC insurance limit, so I'm really not at all worried about what would happen even in the somewhat unlikely event that it did fail. The same bank holds my mortgage, so who knows, maybe I'll get lucky and whoever buys their assets out of receivership will forget about me.

This is not how it works.

How soon do you think your money would become available? If we are talking a run of nearly a dozen banks your money would be locked up for a long time. The government is more likely to “forget” about your bank account than the loans that get sold. Collecting is much more important to the stakeholders than paying out what is owed to the peasants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t the Feds basically say they will cover all depositors without limit? Why does anyone care?

This is a broader issue where the cancer can spread. There is a gigantic issue if the fed has to bail out multiple banks;”:

1 execution, fed is horrible at executing on anything
2.money coming out of the fed is indeed bottomless, but at a very heavy price
3.More bail outs will cause generational harm to our economy.

This is no minor issue, especially with our the self sabatoging misery porn they will just keep the cycle of panic going.

So right now it’s coming out of FDIC fund with plans to top it off with higher assessments. Essentially this one bank run drained the insurance.

If we have more bank runs, it becomes a problem in that it has to come from… somewhere else… like TARP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sandy Spring Bank is on the list - can someone please tell me what this really means. Talk to me like I'm in 5th grade:

https://www.morningstar.com/news/marketwatch/20230311312/20-banks-that-are-sitting-on-huge-potential-securities-lossesas-was-svb

Luckily this link is broken, but articles like this are so irresponsible. Like yelling fire in a crowded theatre.

Interesting...
NP
I clicked on the link much earlier this morning and it was working then.
The article was very little substance. More akin to clickbait.
I agree it was irresponsible.

Exactly. Irresponsible click bait journalism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t the Feds basically say they will cover all depositors without limit? Why does anyone care?

This is a broader issue where the cancer can spread. There is a gigantic issue if the fed has to bail out multiple banks;”:

1 execution, fed is horrible at executing on anything
2.money coming out of the fed is indeed bottomless, but at a very heavy price
3.More bail outs will cause generational harm to our economy.

This is no minor issue, especially with our the self sabatoging misery porn they will just keep the cycle of panic going.

The US government made $15B in profit on TARP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ouch Ally is on there. Or is that a different Ally?

No it's the same Ally.

Isn't Ally based in Hong Kong?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t the Feds basically say they will cover all depositors without limit? Why does anyone care?

This is a broader issue where the cancer can spread. There is a gigantic issue if the fed has to bail out multiple banks;”:

1 execution, fed is horrible at executing on anything
2.money coming out of the fed is indeed bottomless, but at a very heavy price
3.More bail outs will cause generational harm to our economy.

This is no minor issue, especially with our the self sabatoging misery porn they will just keep the cycle of panic going.

The US government made $15B in profit on TARP.

🤦🏽‍♀️

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t the Feds basically say they will cover all depositors without limit? Why does anyone care?

This is a broader issue where the cancer can spread. There is a gigantic issue if the fed has to bail out multiple banks;”:

1 execution, fed is horrible at executing on anything
2.money coming out of the fed is indeed bottomless, but at a very heavy price
3.More bail outs will cause generational harm to our economy.

This is no minor issue, especially with our the self sabatoging misery porn they will just keep the cycle of panic going.

The US government made $15B in profit on TARP.

The great irony was it was George W. Bush's foray into socialism! Literal socialism!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ouch Ally is on there. Or is that a different Ally?

No it's the same Ally.

Isn't Ally based in Hong Kong?

Ally began its existence as GMAC. You can't get more American than GM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ouch Ally is on there. Or is that a different Ally?

No it's the same Ally.

Isn't Ally based in Hong Kong?

No

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ally_Financial

This whole thread is coming across as trying to cause a panic over internet banks. Even the clickbait article that was probably pulled since there was no substance to it at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn’t the Feds basically say they will cover all depositors without limit? Why does anyone care?

This is a broader issue where the cancer can spread. There is a gigantic issue if the fed has to bail out multiple banks;”:

1 execution, fed is horrible at executing on anything
2.money coming out of the fed is indeed bottomless, but at a very heavy price
3.More bail outs will cause generational harm to our economy.

This is no minor issue, especially with our the self sabatoging misery porn they will just keep the cycle of panic going.

The US government made $15B in profit on TARP.

But if they had taken that fund and paid off outstanding debt, they would have saved $70B in interest.