Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • US Plans Emergency Measures To Backstop Banks after SVB
    @hank
    But you might make an argument that inflation harms the wealthy more than the working class.
    There are a number of I think mistaken assumptions in your post. One is that the wealthiest keep most of their money on deposit. The more money someone has, the more risks they can take with that money to keep up with inflation. It is the middle class and poor who need to keep most of their assets in bank accounts, not the wealthiest, as the middle class and poor need to have liquid capital in case of emergencies. A wealthy investor can afford to tie their money up for several years in far less liquid but very lucrative investments with returns that exceed inflation.
    On the other hand, if you have lots of debt (assuming at a fixed-rate) you are helped by inflation as you pay back the debt with cheaper dollars.
    That assumes the poorest people's wages keep up with inflation. That is often not the case as the unskilled or low-skilled labor have the least bargaining power when it comes to wages. If you're not making more money to pay back the fixed amount of debt, that doesn't work. Moreover, much of the debt poorer people often assume like credit card debt is often variable rate that rises with interest rates and inflation.
    The poor spend almost all of their wages on items they consume, and the prices of those items are going up. They have no means of saving in ways that can keep up with inflation.
  • Grim take from M* Yet another SVB thread
    I only mention this because M* typically wears rose-colored glasses . . .
    Here's a taste. No sugar.
    https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1144082/why-investors-should-care-about-the-banking-scare
    It’s easy for investors to dismiss the ripples from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank SVIB as contained and nothing to worry about when it comes to a broader portfolio.
    But if there’s one thing to know about banking crises, it’s that they are never just about the banks. They may start there, but they don’t end there. Easy financial conditions tend to lead to higher risk-taking and a complacency that long-established patterns will continue. Until they don’t.
    As Warren Buffett has been known to observe, only when the tide goes out do you see who’s been swimming naked.
    The Worry Is Fear
    The failure of two major regional banks since Friday threatens to erode investor and consumer confidence to a degree that could spiral in unexpected ways. And with inflation still raging at the highest levels in 40 years and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates at the most accelerated pace since those years, things are starting to break.
    “The worry is about fear,” says Tim Murray, capital markets strategist for multi-asset portfolios at investment manager T. Rowe Price.
    In good times, too, policymakers get lax and tend to feel like it is safe to repeal or reduce important protections designed to prevent systemic events and consumer safeguards.
    My grandfather used to say the business cycle was driven by how long it took to forget lessons learned the hard way. He rolled up banks working for The Comptroller of the Currency during the Great Depression.
    Ah, the good old days, when depositors money was vaporized.
  • Managed Futures Funds Would Not Have Protected You
    @BenWP
    Fair point you make from where I'm sitting. Reminds me of what kudlow said a while back about all the quant etc funds. "they all work until they don't when you need them to" or something close to that
    I do hold but likely going to sell out of blndx and fortx. Maybe these guys models read the trend right in energy and bonds going down the last few years and backwards looking spiffy but those trend reversal moments are hard to digest as you refer to. Not sure how they'll perform going forward. Please don't even mention mafix. Ouch
    I'm going to take those monies and put it into more pmefx and maybe tsumx. Really like the fund manager cippolini at Penn. Working class guy who went to Drexel after junior college. Rhymes with my background.
    Ymmv. Good luck to you and good health to you and yours
    Baseball fan
  • Forbes "Financial All Stars" for March
    Unbelievable "analysis."
    I subscribed to Forbes years ago.
    This publication has really declined over time.
  • Blood in the Streets SCHW etc
    I bought some SCHW at 51+ this morning. I had considered it on Friday but decided to see how the weekend went. It touched 45 early this morning, but I spent some time looking for data and opinions before pulling the trigger.
    I'm somewhat nervous about taking this position, because this is not an industry I've followed (even though I've had some BAC for years).
    Everything in the financial industry has been tarnished. I considered adding to my AXP position (down about 10% in the last month) but don't really see this as a big buying opportunity (yet).
    CNBC has had some interesting guests through the day. Brad Gerstner of Altimeter Capital for one.
    The world of big banks seems much more complicated than the banking issues most of us have encountered in our lives. So their "governance/regulation" is pretty complex.
    Like many other "large" issues in our economy, there are often no easy answers.
    David
  • J. Grantham warns another yr bear market
    Thanks @LewisBraham - Didn’t intend to sound critical of anyone. I read Grantham quite a bit 12-18 months ago and learned a great deal from him. Helped prepare me for the onslaught later on in mid ‘22. It’s just that watching all the different global & domestic assets move around today highlights the value of a broad perspective.
    To your later remark - I actually considered attaching a proviso to the S&P remark along the lines of what you mention. Will we be a democracy in 35 years? Will workers still have the means to invest in the S&P or anything else? Will the atmosphere be fit to breath?
  • J. Grantham warns another yr bear market
    Actually, Grantham's models generally include other kinds of stocks besides the S&P 500 and other asset classes in general, although he doesn't always talk about them in more macro interviews. So, I wouldn't call his view of investing narrow.
    That said, I'm not sure how anyone can say with absolute confidence that "over the next 35 years an S&P index fund should do just fine." That assumes market, economic and political history just repeats. I wonder if someone asked you, "Do you think over the next 35 years the U.S. will remain the dominant global economic superpower?" if your answer would be as confident. And the two questions regarding future market performance and national performance are connected.
  • J. Grantham warns another yr bear market
    I think in Grantham's case, given the models he uses, it's safe to assume he is referring to U.S. large caps, i.e., something akin to the S&P 500 or Russell 1000.
    And pity those with such a narrow view of investing. Unless you’re 25 and DCA’ng into a 401K every couple weeks. Over the next 35 years an S&P index fund should do just fine.
  • How much fear is in the air about SVB and the greater implications?
    Depositors with big cash holdings are – reasonably – expected to be aware of the risks and spread their cash around several institutions. Businesses backed by venture capital, such as the customers of SVB, ought to have been advised how to manage their liquid holdings.
    ... the sight of depositors being made whole ... provides a disincentive for both depositors and banks to be prudent. There’s no reward here for SVB customers who banked more carefully.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/13/svb-crisis-backstop-revives-the-specter-of-moral-hazard/bb2731c6-c188-11ed-82a7-6a87555c1878_story.html
    As I wrote above, I take a darker view. It's not just the presence of reward (higher returns) but the absence of punishment that's a problem with risky deposits. There's no penalty (loss) for large depositors to be reckless with their savings.
    However, it's not every bank failure that gets protection. It's not automatic. It's just the banks that take the most outrageous risks and lose that are directly protected by the government. On infrequent occasions, uninsured depositors lose money. That happens when a failed bank is not TBTF, but the the FDIC can't find a buyer that will assume all of the bank's deposit liabilities.
    https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/bank/
    This unequal treatment has its own problems, as discussed in this 1990 paper (near the end of the quoted section):
    A good first step... would be to cease the present practice of fully paying out uninsured depositors when bank failures occur. This practice, of course, is de facto insurance [emphasis in original] ... Paul Duke, Jr. reports that "many [bankers] support proposals to give depositors a 'haircut' a 10% of 15% loss on deposits above the [FDIC insurance limit] — when a bank fails. Two of banking's biggest guns, Citicorp Chairman John Reed and Chase Manhattan President Thomas Lebrecque, support variations of this proposal (WSJ, Aug 3, 'S9, A16). ... Such a shift in policy should not encounter insuperable opposition since it falls far short of enforcing the insurance limitations which legally already exist.
    Since the Continental Illinois bankruptcy the federal banking and S&L authorities have adopted a too—big—to-fail policy. The policy is closely related to the unwritten policy of rescuing any faltering American corporation if it is large enough. The most notable cases so far have been Continental Illinois and Chrysler.
    ...In the beginning this de facto extension of coverage only applied to the banks and S&Ls which were large enough to have a wide financial influence. ... only the eleven largest banks were originally covered, hence the designation "too-big—t o—fail". The government however was rightfully criticized for this policy on the grounds that it put smaller banks at a competitive disadvantage, so, to correct this inequity the government has for several years made it a general policy to pay off all depositors in both large and small failed banks.
    https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10130&context=etd
  • Bank Rescue Plan
    I say let SVB fail &stick to the $250k cap..Sickens me that these bank execs take huge risks & suffer none of the consequences. And love that they paid bonuses out just hours before the collapse. Gov't should clawback all that & all the bonuses & compensation from those in charge for the past 5 years at least. Only way they're gonna learn is if you hit them in their pockets instead of us little guys.
  • How much fear is in the air about SVB and the greater implications?
    @hank With a lot of threads today, tis like reading a short book here.
    I'll add this back from a previous post regarding the 2008 TARP program.
    Note: these 'loans' did carry interest and was expected to be repaid to the Treasury. The Treasury did have a profit when all was settled and done from the various loans.
    The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was instituted by the U.S. Treasury following the 2008 financial crisis. TARP stabilized the financial system by having the government buy mortgage-backed securities and bank stocks. From 2008 to 2010, TARP invested $426.4 billion in firms and recouped $441.7 billion in return.
    ---Perhaps the Treasury will have some profit for the efforts. :) I don't know the terms of the 'bail' monies.
    Flashback: During the GFC, Bloomberg and CNBC became all-nighters. No info-mercials, etc. 24 hours of everything! SO, if what started Friday could have become systemic; then the actions taken were intended to deliver a full punch here and now. One can only imagine the meetings, phone calls and data crunching of banking records/data. Although, I watched Ms. Yellen this morning state that there would not be a bailout.
    NOW, how about a full audit (any organization that is involved with the any form of banking in this country, plain and clear text without any of the cockeyed and perverted auditing standards that have taken place over the years) available to the public every month, online for free.
    Overview: Still better than China, and that we have a 'form' of 'rule of law', as perverted as it may be.
    Good evening.
  • How much fear is in the air about SVB and the greater implications?
    @catch22- As you would know from our conversations over the years, I have no tolerance for government rescue of institutions or businesses that get into trouble due to stupidity or greed.
    But it's painfully obvious that in today's financial environment there are certain types of businesses that have a need to maintain very large amounts of cash which is readily available for deployment on short notice.
    It's absurd to leave our entire financial and banking system open to the inevitable mismanagement which is guaranteed to occur from time to time, and which then repeatedly threatens the entire financial system. I believe that we need to provide a safe place for businesses to easily and safely deposit large amounts of money without requiring those businesses to fend for themselves in managing those deposits.
    To characterize such an arrangement as a "government takeover/nationalization" is ridiculous, when for all practical purposes that is exactly what the government is now forced to do in any case, to save the rest of the system from self-destruction.
    < end rant />
  • Which Funds Are Taking the Biggest Hit From Silicon Valley Bank and Other Bank Stocks
    How can anyone trust Wells Fargo after multiple trangressions committed over many years?
  • Which Funds Are Taking the Biggest Hit From Silicon Valley Bank and Other Bank Stocks
    Although it could be inside information, more likely the previous decline before the SVB news had to do with rate hikes and Wells Fargo layoffs:
    https://seekingalpha.com/news/3945059-why-did-wells-fargo-stock-drop-today-fed-chairs-comments-hit-bank-stocks-hard
    Bank stocks, particularly, were hit hard, with the KBW Nasdaq Bank Index (BKX) slid 3.9%. Among the biggest U.S. banks, Wells Fargo (WFC) sank the most, -4.7%.
    While banks often benefit from higher interest rates, in that they are able to collect more interest from the loans they provide, the demand for loans declines as it becomes more expensive to borrow. With higher rates, specifically, demand for mortgages also tumbles. And if the Fed tightening leads to a recession, defaults on loans will increase.
    Wells Fargo (WFC) has been one of the biggest mortgage lenders for years, but is scaling back its presence in the sector. The bank reportedly laid off hundreds of mortgage bankers this week and it aims to create a more focused home lending business.
    At the same time, banks will also be pressured to pay more interest on deposits as account holders shop for the best rate.
  • How much fear is in the air about SVB and the greater implications?
    I just received this from First Republic Bank:

    To Our Valued Clients,
    In light of recent industry events, the last few days have caused uncertainty in the financial markets. We want to take a moment to reinforce the safety and stability of First Republic, reflected in the continued strength of our capital, liquidity and operations.
    Our capital remains strong. Our capital levels are significantly higher than the regulatory requirements for being considered well capitalized.
    Our liquidity remains strong. In addition to our well-diversified deposit base, we continue to have access to over $60 billion of available, unused borrowing capacity at the Federal Home Loan Bank and the Federal Reserve Bank.
    We are here to fully serve you. We stand ready to process transactions and wires, fund loans, answer questions and serve your overall financial needs — as we do every day.
    For almost 40 years, we have operated a simple, straightforward business model centered on taking extraordinary care of our clients. We have successfully navigated various macroeconomic and interest rate environments, and today we have among the industry’s highest rates of client satisfaction and retention.
    FWIW...
  • J. Grantham warns another yr bear market
    https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/jeremy-grantham-stock-market-bubble-fed-horror-show-interest-rates-2023-3
    Business News
    Veteran investor Jeremy Grantham says the stock bubble is still deflating and the market will go down in 2024 amid a ‘horror show’ from the Fed.
    by Alma Winkle March 10, 2023
    Veteran investor Jeremy Grantham says the stock bubble is still deflating and the market will go down in 2024 amid a ‘horror show’ from the Fed.
    Jeremy Grantham said that the stock bubble is still in the process of deflating and the market will not bottom out until 2024.
    The veteran investor blasted the Fed’s monetary policy as a 36-year-long “horror show.”
    He predicted mild pain for investors in the coming year, while warning of a downturn in equities around April.
    The stock market bubble is still in the process of deflating, according to veteran investor Jeremy Grantham, and equities will finally bottom out in late 2024 amid the Federal Reserve’s “horror show” of monetary policy.
    In a recent interview on Bloomberg’s What Goes Up podcast, the GMO co-founder reiterated his view that stocks were in a speculative bubble and about to pop, thanks to the end of ultra-low interest rates and ample liquidity in the market. Thanks for those who brought the stock. For circling high during the pandemic.
    Grantham also blasted the Fed’s monetary policy in the years since former Alan Greenspan took over as central bank chairman in 1987, calling its effects on the US economy a 36-year-long “horror show”, which has recently Helped build immense wealth over the years. ,
    No end in sights until 2024, maybe 17% more downturn
    so much pain ahead...
  • SVB FINANCIAL CRISIS
    @linter
    I transcribed my grandfather's hand scribbled diaries from two business trips he took to Europe in 1938 and 1940
    He was in Vienna March 15, 1938 (Anschluss ) and arguing with the desk clerk at the Hotel Imperial about why they had given his room away to the Nazis when Hitler Goering etc marched right by them, not ten feet away.
    He couldn't fly out of Europe in 1940 and had to wait six weeks for a ship in Lisbon, along with hundreds of refugees and Gestapo He kept daily entries describing the faces and characters.
    They are both amazing documents
    These are accessible because they are limited in words and focused content. While today's world it seems like everyone puts there every thought online, how on earth is anybody going to find the gold among the dross in years to come?
  • Bloomberg Wall Street Week
    March 10, '23
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2023-03-11/wall-street-week-full-show-03-10-2023
    Ketterer at Causeway is so smart and engaging. But I just don't need small-cap volatility anymore. The other guest, Barbers Reinhard from Voya says you would do well with EM if you can hang on for 3-4 years into the future. Not interested, after EM has burned me so often.
    I enjoyed the mildly stated but pointed conflicts between the two women in the early segment. Kettner thinks active management best now. Avoid index funds. Reinhard primarily uses index funds due to low cost. Ketterer likes foreign developed markets which she sees as cheap if measured against the U.S. the past decade. But Reinhard says to reduce exposure to foreign markets which have been hot more recently. Favors U.S. holdings.
    Sure, Kettner is more media savvy, younger looking, appears to have her head screwed on straight. Doesn’t mean she’s right on those issues. Interesting that Reinhard was in studio with the host / moderator while Ketterer appeared on a large screen. I’m sure psychologists or communications professors would have a good take on how that plays in to viewer perceptions. But, I haven’t a clue. (Well, I do have a clue, but it’s not worth sharing.)
    Zell comes across as an old money-grubbing traditionalist concerned about his bottom line and little else.
  • SVB FINANCIAL CRISIS
    i've been a rolling stone contributing-editor writer since 1998 and worked there in different capacities since 1982 and while many folks think rs sold out decades ago, it's shocking to me how truly awful it has become since it was bought by penske media a few years ago. it's mostly all phony opinion put-downs now, with real reporting hardly given a thought. but that's the pressure of the modern online world, too, where 'content' has to be produced at a frantic clip that does away with more fact-based stuff: there's just no time for it ... atho of course there are exceptions.
    as to the decline before penske. well, rs did some great work and had some great writers, the late hunter thompson, of course, but also matt taibi. me, i guess i'm part of the decline, what with writing cover stories about clay aiken and that snooki creature. then again, i was the last legit journalist to visit charlie manson in prison and write about him, though i got heat for that just being sensationalist junk, too. ain't no way to really win, not that i ever thought about it or cared.
    but man o man do i miss the old days, when i could write 10k-word pieces that showed up in print and seemed to go on forever (for better or worse, ha ha). while i'm still on the masthead, i haven't had a piece published there in a long time. my style of writing -- mainly black comedy of a sort -- no longer flies with the new bosses; plus, i can't do straight opinion and that's what most of it has become.
    i'm an ancient fart now, and the whole world has changed around me, and while i think it's all for the worse, so do most ancient farts. my way of dealing with it is to shrug and do something else. right now that means transcribing my great aunt's diaries from 1923, when she was traveling in post-WW1 Europe, and putting em online at this place called substack. feel free to check them out. she really was something else and a far better writer than me even at my so-called best. https://thekathidiaries.substack.com/