Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

pegothejerk t1_jcgiwam wrote

Man, a search on Reddit for First Republic has a discussion 6 days ago where the top comment absolute assured a concerned individual that the bank is solid as fuck. Remember, taking financial or legal advice from stranger on Reddit is probably not the best choice out there.

https://reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/11nr2xv/_/jbovup4/?context=1

67

SsurebreC t1_jcgkie7 wrote

To be fair, professionals don't know anything either and if they do, they're definitely keeping their mouths shut.

26

pegothejerk t1_jcglhnt wrote

I’d still prefer to know what the experts are saying and ignore redditers, as at least when Cramer says to invest in something I know it’s days away from collapse. Who knows with some weirdo telling me how to invest and then going to make memes where his gerbils are dressed as Spider-Man pointing at each other.

16

kayak_enjoyer t1_jchz6ny wrote

If you flip a quarter to make investing decisions, you'll be right about half the time.

Jim Cramer: dumber than a quarter.

5

ThoughensTheNipples t1_jcgtdme wrote

Wait. What!? Yesterday, someone told me to shove all my money up my ass, and I've been walking around with $5 dollars shoved up my ass. You're telling me that is not the safest place for my $5????

8

JackedUpReadyToGo t1_jchoym9 wrote

I would recommend diversifying your portfolio with an investment in Bitcoin, but you strike me as more of a Buttcoin type of investor.

6

HardToPeeMidasTouch t1_jckspvi wrote

Diversify by inserting a view rare metal coins(preferably gold) since you can get more value per gram) up your urethra for safe keeping. Cheaper than a bank deposit box and you always have them on hand incase of a massive crash. Gold will always have value.

1

ShoestringTherapy t1_jcgjopn wrote

Watching the market react to things like this really puts in perspective how little I understand any of this.

But I'm stubborn so I'll keep trying

40

0pimo t1_jchwygy wrote

The basic thing to understand about Wall Street is that stocks go up and down largely based on how people feel about things, not based on any real quantitative reasoning.

A company posts record profits? Stock goes up. The amount it goes up isn't based on how big the profits are really other than the bigger the number the more people like it.

If you want to see this stupidity in action, at one point Tesla was valued more than every other car company on the planet combined.

28

evensevenone t1_jcifzft wrote

Oh it’s even worse, like my company announces our prediction for earnings, then a bunch of random analysts pick different numbers and if we’re not at those numbers the stock goes down.

7

BLACK_HALO_V10 t1_jcjdji4 wrote

Stocks are basically glorified gambling and we bet our entire retirement on it lol

It's honestly ridiculous

2

AaronfromKY t1_jcglxu6 wrote

I know nothing about any of this, but after the selloff on Monday I bought a bunch of bank stocks and made a few hundred dollars easily since fear lead to them being oversold. Just saying what worked for me.

4

MalcolmLinair t1_jcgqqml wrote

This whole bank debacle is making me think of the old Simpsons gag with the pig at barbecue. "It's just one bank failing, the economy's still good...! It's just a few small banks shut down, it's still good, it's still good...! It's just a major bank begging for help, it's still good, it's still good...!"

26

lifeisawork_3300 t1_jch7wmg wrote

I think more of it like this episode

Bart:What do you mean the bank is out of money? Insolvent?...... Only have enough cash for the next three customers.

In conclusion your money is Bill and Freds house.

https://youtu.be/Bzz8BvaQL9Q

7

JackedUpReadyToGo t1_jcj2juk wrote

I find myself missing the good old days of classic Simpsons more and more. Not only were the townsfolk of Springfield the quickest people in the world to descend into an angry torch-waving mob, they also manage to do so while completely upending a scene from a classic heartwarming movie like It's a Wonderful Life. It's such a humorous kind of misanthropy, heaping scorn on the myths we tell ourselves about the better angels of human nature and sketching a more accurate depiction of the way modern Americans truly act. The Simpsons has become so engrained in modern culture it's easy to forget it was once considered subversive, with the fucking President taking time out of his day to criticize it.

"Hey, what the hell ya doing with my money in ya house, Fred?" * punch *

2

[deleted] t1_jcgls36 wrote

[removed]

16

PM_ME_UR_DIET_TIPS t1_jcgnb7h wrote

>Lankford said the impact of this standard would be that small banks would be less appealing to depositors with more than $250,000, the current FDIC insurance threshold.

Isn't that the correct approach?

15

Draker-X t1_jcmh6ls wrote

If we want to kill the business side of non-big banks, sure. This is basically telling every business other than the truly smallest that they're better off with one of "the Big 4" rather than even a good-sized, multi-state regional bank.

3

noxx1234567 t1_jch0mc5 wrote

That seems incredibly corrupt and unethical to bail out some bank depositors selectively , why are SVB depositors getting bailed out when others won't ?

12

Warmstar219 t1_jcirl85 wrote

Because "too big to fail" is now a viable business strategy employed by those at the top.

4

Immortal-one t1_jciquqs wrote

If this is anything like 08, the failing banks I buy stock in for hopes of a bailout and rebound will be the ones that don’t get bailed out and drop to zero

3

Office_glen t1_jckxp3v wrote

> why are SVB depositors getting bailed out when others won't ?

because the depositors at other small banks don't lobby government

3

Jeremycycles t1_jcgvv5y wrote

The FDIC may say they will guarantee everything over 250,000 but they literally just used all of their cash reserve to do it for a bank that isn't even in the top 15 largest in the US.

7

TheRealCabbageJack t1_jcgyhou wrote

Counterpoint: it’s depositors were all very very rich people. That is all.

16

hardolaf t1_jcizm5h wrote

Counterpoint, it's depositors were mostly relatively low net worth startups that employ hundreds of thousands of people who pay a lot in taxes.

4

InteractionNOVA2021 t1_jch8md9 wrote

The FDIC will require the other banks it insures to pay a special assessment to help pay for at least some of this depositor rescue. The same thing happened after the Banking Crisis of 2008. At that time, the premium was 20 cents for every $100 dollars of domestic deposits.

I also anticipate that the FDIC will recover a decent amount from the sale of SVB's assets. This isn't the typical situation in which the bank is burdened by a substantial portfolio of non-performing loans.

2

Jeremycycles t1_jch9i93 wrote

After the assets are sold. So right now if any regular Joe Schmo bank fails the regular people are fucked

3

InteractionNOVA2021 t1_jchciwq wrote

The Deposit Insurance Fund is backed by the U.S. Treasury. The FDIC was bailed out in the 1980's and again after the 2008 Banking Crisis. So, insured depositors are still protected.

−2

Jeremycycles t1_jchdcee wrote

False, the FDIC is not backed by the treasury but they do invest in treasury securities. The FDIC is completely funded by member banks.

7

Warmstar219 t1_jcirqwh wrote

And that, in turn, will be passed onto the people depositing at the bank.

2

PhoenixReborn t1_jch3537 wrote

They were pretty explicit that SVB and Signature were getting an exception due to systemic risk. The Fed and FDIC would have to reach the same conclusion for another intervention. How many deposits in Oklahoma are even uninsured?

4

TheBirdBytheWindow t1_jchcgbb wrote

>How many deposits in Oklahoma are even uninsured?

Think about how much land, cattle and feed is out there and where all those ranchers bank. Then imagine what all is at stake if that goes to pot.

Its not great.

5

HildemarTendler t1_jcj3hjl wrote

Ranchers don't typically have a ton of cash in banks. Most of their assets are in the ranch itself. And then investments if they have a lot of excess capital.

3

TheBirdBytheWindow t1_jcjgvnx wrote

>Ranchers don't typically have a ton of cash in banks.

Maybe not, but they have accounts of some magnitude to process their banking and then the mortgage on the property if not owned outright. There's significant investment there and it can't all be owned outright.

1

grandpaharoldbarnes t1_jcgowd3 wrote

I remember when Goldman Sachs fell all the way to $48/share.

10

Mr_Mouthbreather t1_jci714l wrote

Is there any way we can get away from the massive "too big to fail" banks? Isn't that the more major problem?

2

Draker-X t1_jcmijoq wrote

The issue right now is that we don't know where the "too big to fail" line is.

Right now that would go to banks that have "greater than X" percentage of their depositors be businesses with deposits over $250K.

People could probably figure out the number of businesses, but how would anyone solve for "x"?

2

HildemarTendler t1_jcj3lwo wrote

Right now those are the organizations making sure the smaller banks don't fail. So while I agree with your sentiment, now isn't a good time to be going after them.

1

Xivvx t1_jchfbh7 wrote

As long as the executives, employees and shareholders aren't being bailed out by government money, it's fine.

1

frealfr t1_jciucn7 wrote

Depression 2.0 is here.

1

baxterstate t1_jci35dk wrote

I hope that any depositor who has more than the $250,000 limit is reimbursed even if it means that there’s not enough money in the FDIC fund and taxpayers will have to make up the difference.

This is what’s been done with the SVB bailout, so it’s only fair that First Republic gets the same treatment.

−5