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.
  • Meta to Layoff Another 10,000 Workers
    Didnt it occur to them that the pandemic would not last forever, and their payroll would have to drop back to more normal levels?
    NPR's "doubling" figure likely represented the growth of full-time employees from 2019 (44,942) through 2022 (86,482). Data from Statistia. Confirmed by WP:
    Between the end of 2019 and its peak headcount in 2022, the company nearly doubled in size to some 87,000 employees.
    Data from Statista. Sometimes Statista provides full data w/o subscribing, sometimes not. So here's the data it presented me:
    2004: 7
    2005: 15
    2006: 150
    2007: 450
    2008: 850
    2009: 1,218
    2010: 2,127
    2011: 3,200
    2012: 4,619
    2013: 6,337
    2014: 9,199
    2015: 12,691
    2016: 17,048
    2017: 25,105
    2018: 35,537
    2019: 44,942
    2020: 56,604
    2021: 71,970
    2022: 86:482
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/273563/number-of-facebook-employees/
    Rolling three year hiring rates:
    2007: 64x (2004-2007, 450/7)
    2008: 57x
    2009: 8x
    2010: 5x
    2011: 4x
    2012: 4x
    2013: 3x
    2014: 3x
    2015: 3x
    2016: 3x
    2017: 3x
    2018: 3x
    2019: 3x (2.64)
    2020: 2x (2.25)
    2021: 2x (2.03)
    2022: 2x (1.92)
    Seems pretty "normal" to me. That last hiring rate was not out of line. The rate was not due to the pandemic, but during the pandemic. Parts of the WP piece support the idea that this has to do with tech sector hubris.
    The [Meta] hiring sustained its ambitious (and in some cases seemingly ill-fated) projects like its big bet on the metaverse. ...
    [T]he deep cuts ... reflect a deeper shift in thinking about the metrics that matter in a tech sector that has long been able to make up its own rules.
    During the pandemic, as tech CEOs accelerated their empire building, a massive and growing headcount somehow became equated with a company’s overall health — a sign that it had cash, clout and big ambitions.
    that it had cash - cross check that with SVB and why startups were pulling cash out of their bank accounts. Their cash spigots were drying up.
  • Right Now: Treasuries vs CDs
    @AndyJ, CDs over 5% for 1 year are still available. It was up to 5.35% yesterday and they are being snapped up quickly.
  • US Plans Emergency Measures To Backstop Banks after SVB
    Let's review the previous FDIC system -
    Your individual account was insured up to $250,000.
    Your spouse's individual account was insured up to $250,000.
    Your joint account was insured up to $500,000.
    Seriously, how many couples are keeping $1MM in cash?
    The banks pay for this insurance coverage, which means we all pay in some way.
    If all deposts are going to be insured, clearly banks will be charged more for the increased coverage.
    I suggest banks should recover these extra costs by charging corporate accounts a fee on the basis of average balance, and perhaps a risk premium.
  • US Plans Emergency Measures To Backstop Banks after SVB
    @WABAC
    But the chance for an average saver to get a safe return of 5-6% on their money will raise Maggie Thatcher from the dead, legitimize neocolonial revanchism, bring back the Cold War order, destroy unions that no longer exist, and, wait for it, throw people out of work.
    Never said any of that, merely pointed out as the article did that the Volcker cure for inflation wasn't all that, and had definite negative consequences. Nor can it be said that only one group of people wants lower rates. Most poor people in the U.S. have little to no savings to collect interest on, and actually have more variable-rate credit card debt that increases their burden as rates rise:https://bankrate.com/banking/savings/emergency-savings-report/#over-1-in-3
    Over a third (36 percent) of people have more credit card debt than emergency savings, the highest percentage in 12 years of Bankrate asking this survey question. In comparison, 22 percent of people had more credit card debt in January 2022, while 28 percent of people had more credit card debt in January 2020, before COVID-19 began to affect the U.S.
    Ultimately, rate cuts are economically stimulative while raising rates constricts. There needs to be consideration on both sides of the consequences. And you yourself by acknowledging labor has little power today compared to the 1970s have pointed out the reason we shouldn't perhaps be too fixated on raising rates too high.
    Given the choice, I would rather see targeted fiscal stimulus than monetary stimulus to help the specific areas of our economy that are struggling via government programs, and tax hikes to constrict things when we get overstimulated. But there are obvious political roadblocks to fiscal stimulus. Interest rates are a blunt instrument that helps and hurts multiple parties.
    As for SVB, I am fine with making all depositors whole just so long as the rich people getting bailed out stop complaining about the "moral hazard" of helping poor people. Moreover, the capital standards from Dodd Frank need to be restored and SVB should be nationalized, and the government collect all future profits to give back to taxpayers.
  • Schwab, First Republic, Zion, bank loan and preferred funds bloodbath
    I suppose it could be - SNOXX has to turn over its portfolio faster and could have been acquiring more lower yielding paper. But with rates gyrating by the minute, it's hard to tell.
    More interesting to me right now are the inflow rates of MMFs in the past 24 hours. You can find them navigating from the same Schwab page:
    https://www.schwab.com/money-market-funds#bcn-table--table-content-89811
    There's a huge outflow spike in SWVXX (prime MMF) - normally has inflows, had an outflow 6x the normal inflow rate.
    And corresponding inflow spikes in government MMFs:
    SNSXX - normally near zero +/-, had an inflow 20x normal magnitude
    SNOXX - normally has small inflows, had an inflow 15x
    These are to be expected knee jerk reactions. This pattern didn't hold with one MMF:
    SNVXX - more erratic pattern with some previous spikes, notably large outflows on a couple of days in January, but also a huge inflow spike Jan 4 just slightly larger than yesterday's inflow
    Those were the retail shares of these funds. Similar flows for the institutional share classes ($1M min), except for SGUXX (SNVXX). In the institutional share class, flows have been very sedate, including yesterday, except for one inflow spike (15x-30x normal net flow) on March 9th.
  • Right Now: Treasuries vs CDs
    @Andy, overnight the treasury yield fell again from last night. Both 4m and 6m are now below 5%.
    https://cnbc.com/bonds/
    Please see the other posting for the reason:
    https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/60810/dow-futures-fall-500-points-as-credit-suisse-shares-drop-more-than-20
  • Dow futures fall 500 points as Credit Suisse shares drop more than 20%
    Apparently something broke in the banking sector not just in US…
    Excerpt from article:
    In recent days, a crisis in the financial sector has centered around regional banks as Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed, both casualties of poor management in the face of eight interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve in the last 12 months. Wednesday morning attention turned to the big banks with shares of Credit Suisse hitting an all-time low.
    Saudi National Bank, Credit Suisse’s largest investor, said Wednesday it could not provide any more funding, according to a Reuters report. This comes after the Swiss lender said Tuesday it had found “certain material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting” for the years 2021 and 2022.
    As Credit Suisse dragged down the European Bank sector, U.S. big bank shares declined in sympathy. Citigroup and Wells Fargo shed 3%, while Goldman Sachs and Bank of America fell 2%. The Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund lost 2.9% in premarket trading, giving up its 2% pop on Tuesday.
    Regional Banks, whose rebounded helped lift sentiment for the broader market on Tuesday, fell back into the red again. The SPDR S&P Regional Banking ETF (KRE) was down 3% in the premarket, led by losses in Old National Bancorp, Zions Bancorp and Fifth Third Bancorp. To be sure, shares of First Republic Bank were clinging to gains.
    https://cnbc.com/2023/03/14/stock-market-today-live-updates.html
    From Reuters:
    Credit Suisse on Tuesday published its annual report for 2022 saying the bank had identified "material weaknesses" in controls over financial reporting and not yet stemmed customer outflows.
    Switzerland's second-biggest bank is seeking to recover from a string of scandals that have undermined the confidence of investors and clients. Customer outflows in the fourth quarter rose to more than 110 billion Swiss francs ($120 billion).

  • Right Now: Treasuries vs CDs
    T bill rates are heading back up; tonight 4m and 6m are back above 5%. That was quick.
  • US Plans Emergency Measures To Backstop Banks after SVB
    The point is to avoid getting to the need for a Volcker-style shock. Right now we're at about half of what Volcker was faced with. Let's see if we can avoid that.
    Rehashing the favorite arguments of the geriatric right, and left, from the 1970's may be of historiographic interest. But the fall of the Wall put paid to the whole "Cold War order" thing.
    Of course no one said that today's labor movement is close to what it was at the beginning of the 70's. My point is that the people that oppose what little is happening now are very much in favor of easy money from the Fed.
    OTOH. In this very forum I see people arguing for punishing depositors at SVB without regard to the knock-on effects of failure to pay workers or vendors. Stick it to 'em.
    But the chance for an average saver to get a safe return of 5-6% on their money will raise Maggie Thatcher from the dead, legitimize neocolonial revanchism, bring back the Cold War order, destroy unions that no longer exist, and, wait for it, throw people out of work.
  • US Plans Emergency Measures To Backstop Banks after SVB
    @hank, I grew up with the irresolute response to the last inflation. I don't want to spend what could be the rest of my life going through that again

    @WABC -You weren’t pleased with Nixon’s 1970 wage & price freeze? :)
    I was pretty irresponsible with money 50 years ago, so I doubt any Fed policy would have helped. Fortunately, we had a strong labor union where I worked and so wages kept up with inflation. With annual raises based on seniority, I stayed ahead of inflation. I do not remember a lot of public yelling and screaming about it in the 70s. It crept up on us slowly; started creeping up bit by bit in the 60s. Once we went off the gold standard (‘71) it quickened. For the most part we took inflation in stride as part of life. In Michigan the “Big Three” auto plants were still humming. The unionized workers there did very well. Could afford to own nice new vehicles and suburban homes. Some even owned second homes in the northern reaches of the state.
    While I contributed automatically to a 403B from my pay, I wasn’t really attuned to investing. But left alone the global equity fund (run by John Templeton then) did quite well and paved the way for the future. A gold & silver craze developed in the late 70s. There was tremendous media hype as the price of gold soared from $35 a decade earlier to around $800 an ounce. I grabbed off a couple K-Rands near the top and watched it slide to $400-$500 over a few years before selling. It was the best lesson in investing I ever received. And the Hunt Brothers somehow managed to buy enough silver back than to push the price over $50 an ounce - an astronomical height it has never reclaimed.
    Whatever we’re facing now by way of inflation is mild compared to the 60s thru 80s period. And I think the Fed for reasons I don’t fully understand is engaged in some serious overkill. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater might apply.
    A blast from the past
    ”With inflation on the rise and a gold run looming, Nixon’s administration coordinated a plan for bold action. From August 13 to 15, 1971, Nixon and fifteen advisers, including Federal Reserve Chairman Arthur Burns, Treasury Secretary John Connally, and Undersecretary for International Monetary Affairs Paul Volcker (later Federal Reserve Chairman) met at the presidential retreat at Camp David and created a new economic plan. On the evening of August 15, 1971, Nixon addressed the nation on a new economic policy that not only was intended to correct the balance of payments but also stave off inflation and lower the unemployment rate.
    The first order was for the gold window to be closed. Foreign governments could no longer exchange their dollars for gold; in effect, the international monetary system turned into a fiat one. A few months later the Smithsonian agreement attempted to maintain pegged exchange rates, but the Bretton Woods system ended soon thereafter. The second order was for a 90-day freeze on wages and prices to check inflation. This marked the first time the government enacted wage and price controls outside of wartime. It was an attempt to bring down inflation without increasing the unemployment rate or slowing the economy. In addition, an import surcharge was set at 10 percent to ensure that American products would not be at a disadvantage because of exchange rates.
    Shortly after the plan was implemented, the growth of employment and production in the United States increased. Inflation was practically halted during the 90-day wage-price freeze but would soon reappear as the monetary momentum in support of inflation had already begun. Nixon’s new economic policy represented a coordinated attack on the simultaneous problems of unemployment, inflation, and disequilibrium in the balance of payments. The plan was one of the many prescriptions written to cure inflation, which would eventually continue to rise.”

    Source
  • Federal Reserve’s Path Is Murkier After Bank Blowup
    Thank you for sharing. This morning the CPI was reported 6.0% in Feb, not higher. Core CPI excluding volatile fuel and food is lower in Feb. Housing and rent remained high. Some reported old measuring method used is lagging the actual data. With cooling inflation and the SVB debacle, the probability of 25 bps rate hike on March 22nd is increasing. Only Gold Sach is predicting no rate hike.
    Just glad to see rebound in the broader market. The week is still young.
  • US Plans Emergency Measures To Backstop Banks after SVB
    Inflation can indeed be a real PITA for average people, but not having a job to pay for anything is worse for many people than being employed but having to pay more for everything. A balance of these interests needs to be recognized in the rate discussion. From the article on after Volcker jacked up rates to double digits:
    The economic results of this counterrevolution were far from unambiguous. Growth in the early 1980s slumped. Entire industrial sectors were rendered uncompetitive by soaring interest rates and surging exchange rates. Unemployment hit postwar records. It was painful, but on the conservative reading there was, as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher liked to say, no alternative. If the struggles of the 1970s had continued, she suggested, the result would have been a slide toward ever more rapid inflation and threats to the institutional status quo. Ultimately, the Cold War order was in peril, and if avoiding that fate required turning monetary policy into a more blunt-force form of political struggle, then so be it. In fighting the mineworkers into submission in 1984-85, she was waging war on enemies within, as she waged war on the Soviet enemy without. The prize was nothing less than a permanent shift in the balance of social and economic power and the exclusion of alternatives to the rule of private property and markets.
    As for labor having much power, it is a shadow of what it was in the 1970s:
    image
  • How are Brokerage and Investment Accounts Protected? - NYT
    When a bank goes bankrupt, depositors are at risk because they are general creditors of the bank. FDIC insurance guarantees that $250K/account type/owner will be covered even if the bank has no assets to pay with.
    Brokerages are different. The securities in your brokerage account, whether MMF shares or T-bills or corporate bonds, or mutual funds or stocks, are still in your account (and untouchable by creditors) if the brokerage goes bust. SIPC insurance protects against someone at the brokerage stealing those securities.
    The securities in your Schwab account—including fully paid securities for stocks and bonds and excess margin securities—are segregated in compliance with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Customer Protection Rule. This is the legal requirement for all U.S. broker-dealers. Your segregated assets are not available to general creditors and are protected against creditors' claims in the unlikely event that a broker-dealer becomes insolvent
    https://international.schwab.com/account-protection
    Admittedly there are secondary concerns. If the brokerage does flop, it may not be able to give you access to your securities (or cash) efficiently. That's an operational problem, not one of lost assets. Right now, I might be questioning Fidelity, because it uses UMB bank for processing checks and ACH/EFT transfers, and Moody's has placed UMB Financial under review, along with First Republic, Zions Bankcorp., etc.
    https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/moodys-downgrades-signature-bank-junk-places-six-us-banks-under-review-2023-03-14/
  • Federal Reserve’s Path Is Murkier After Bank Blowup
    The Fed has been rapidly raising interest rates to fight inflation. But making big moves could be trickier amid instability.
    Excerpts from a current article in The New York Times-
    The Federal Reserve’s hotly anticipated March 22 interest rate decision is just a week and a half away, and the drama that swept the banking and financial sector over the weekend is drastically shaking up expectations for what the central bank will deliver.
    Before this weekend, investors believed there was a substantial chance that the Fed would make a half-point increase at its meeting next week. But investors and economists no longer see that as a likely possibility.
    Three notable banks have failed in the past week alone as Fed interest rate increases ricochet through the technology sector and cryptocurrency markets and upend even usually staid bank business models. The tumult — and the risks that it exposed — could make the central bank more cautious as it pushes forward.
    Investors have abruptly downgraded how many interest rate moves they expect this year. After Mr. Powell’s speech last week opened the door to a large rate change at the next meeting, investors had sharply marked up their 2023 forecasts, even penciling in a tiny chance that rates would rise above 6 percent this year. But after the wild weekend in finance, they see just a small move this month and expect the Fed to cut rates to just above 4.25 percent by the end of the year.
    Economists at J.P. Morgan said the situation bolstered the case for a smaller, quarter-point move this month. Goldman Sachs economists no longer expect a rate move at all.
    Other economists went even further: Nomura, saying it was unclear whether the government’s relief program was enough to stop problems in the banking sector, is now calling for a quarter-point rate cut at the coming meeting.
    The Fed will receive fresh information on inflation on Tuesday, when the Consumer Price Index is released. That measure is likely to have climbed 6 percent over the year through February, economists in a Bloomberg forecast expected. That would be down slightly from 6.4 percent in a previous reading.
    But economists expected prices to climb 0.4 percent from January after food and fuel prices, which jump around a lot, are stripped out. That pace would be quick enough to suggest that inflation pressures were still unusually stubborn — which would typically argue for a forceful Fed response.
    The data could underline why this moment poses a major challenge for the Fed. The central bank is in charge of fostering stable inflation, which is why it has been raising interest rates to slow spending and business expansions, hoping to rein in growth and cool price increases.
    But it is also charged with maintaining financial system stability, and higher interest rates can reveal weaknesses in the financial system — as the blowup of Silicon Valley Bank on Friday and the towering risks for the rest of the banking sector illustrated. That means those goals can come into conflict.
    Some saw the Fed’s new lending program — which will allow banks that are suffering in the high-rate environment to temporarily move to the Fed a chunk of the risk they are facing from higher interest rates — as a sort of insurance policy that could allow the central bank to continue raising rates without causing further ruptures.
    “The Fed has basically just written insurance on interest-rate risk for the whole banking system,” said Steven Kelly, senior research associate at Yale’s program on financial stability. “They’ve basically underwritten the banking system, and that gives them more room to tighten monetary policy.”

  • Bank Rescue Plan
    krugman, smartly argued piece, is not much in alignment w my fussy thinking:
    ... there are good reasons to feel uncomfortable about this bailout. And yes, it was a bailout. The fact that the funds will come from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation — which will make up any losses with increased fees on banks — rather than directly from the Treasury doesn’t change the reality that the government came in to rescue depositors who had no legal right to demand such a rescue.
    Furthermore, having to rescue this particular bank and this particular group of depositors is infuriating: Just a few years ago, S.V.B. was one of the midsize banks that lobbied successfully for the removal of regulations that might have prevented this disaster, and the tech sector is famously full of libertarians who like to denounce big government right up to the minute they themselves needed government aid.
    ... Adam Smith ... called for bank regulation, which he compared to the requirement that urban buildings have walls that limit the spread of fire.

    https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20230314&instance_id=87696&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=127769&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/d34a70ea-8e6e-5785-a915-260c60335e86&user_id=83d45440ead1d14c2a89a1e7221337d1
  • How are Brokerage and Investment Accounts Protected? - NYT
    FYI per The NYT:
    "If a brokerage firm is in financial trouble, an entity called the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, known as SIPC, serves as a backstop. It’s a nonprofit corporation that was created under the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970.
    SIPC generally covers up to $500,000 of securities and cash (including a $250,000 limit for the cash component) for each customer, though that can be higher for people with multiple accounts — depending on the account types and whether they’re individual accounts or jointly held.
    A traditional individual retirement account, a Roth I.R.A. and an individual brokerage account, for example, would each qualify for a $500,000 limit at the same firm. The same goes for a separate joint account or a trust account.
    But if you had two individual brokerage accounts at the same firm, for instance, you would receive only up to $500,000 in protection for both. A married couple with a joint brokerage account — as well as two individual brokerage accounts at the same firm — would receive an additional $500,000 in coverage for the joint account."

    Question: In light of the recent bank failures in California, is or has anybody been breaking up their accounts at different brokerages to meet the SIPC's $500,000 coverage limit? Is anybody concerned in view of Schwab's recent market performance?
    Just curious, since I never considered the possibility of a major national brokerage firm going bankrupt.
    Fred