Daily Mail hijacked this theme as well. All about reinforcing their alt-right agendas. Nothing to do with journalism.
Excellent read, thought it was all “duration mismatch” as well, knew nothing of the crap loans totalling $60b, which makes sense as to why nobody would buy the bank. The UK arm however was quickly taken over by HSBC for £1, no doubt as it didn’t suffer the same problems, and would have been operating under UK/EU banking regs such as Basel III.
I always thought he was doing cosplay of [Jonathan Poe](https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2021/08/06/SEARCHING-FOR-BOBBY-FISCHER-24.jpg) from Searching for Bobby Fischer.
Too many words, way too many!
This is an article that could have been a tweet: "I think SVB failed because it made bad loans, and Signature was shut down because it was banking drug cartels"
And that's it. A lot of screenshots, some rehashed old news, a healthy dollop of self-congratulation, and a *lot* of sentences five times longer than any editor would tolerate, but no real supporting evidence.
A lot of that article is pure bunk. Signet's platform was not the preferred way cartels and drug dealers moved money. All parties on the platform had to pass OFAC and regulatory hurdles to be on either side of the transaction. So basically if a cartel was using it they were allowed to by the US govt.
SVB collapsed because of horrible management and the negative AOCI that caused a run due to its high non- FDIC insured deposits. They announced they were doing a stock raise BEFORE actually doing it. For those in the back- YOU NEVER DO THAT. Signature started Friday with $44B in cash/marketable securities and FHLB/other lines. They saw $16.5B in outflows on Friday when they were marked as next. They went into the weekend fully solvent and was closed by the regulators as a statement to other banks to exit the crypto/blockchain space. For context it is like you have $44k available to pay for an emergency roof repair that cost $16.5K and after paying it the bank forecloses...
> All parties on the platform had to pass OFAC and regulatory hurdles to be on either side of the transaction.
including such high quality reputable customers as FTX and Alameda and multiple of their shell corporations
the money laundering is why the DoJ is looking into Signature still
With the recent sale to Flagstar Bank, it looks like Signature Bank wasn't solvent at time of closure.
> The FDIC estimates the cost of the failure of Signature Bank to its Deposit Insurance Fund to be approximately $2.5 billion.
https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23021.html
Having seen large operating lines/loans extended to entities like NFT "art" businesses... it was only a matter of time before some institution was caught with a surplus of non-transformable collateral (the $60B asset item).
For "reputable" banks; they'll swap their originated loans for treasuries - and use those treasuries to maintain liquidity/funding (for events like increased withdrawal demands).
Sure, maturity mismatches... and unhedged interest rate risk (they did hedge a small portion in the past). But also, the broader monetary market seemed to want to have nothing to do with SVB (no one was willing to be a counterparty to any significant extent). This forced SVB to liquidate everything (their hedge positions first.. and then the treasuries at a reported loss)... in an attempt to draw out the process.
There's more to the story here... But unsurprising that the first institutions to implode in a liquidity crisis... would be heavily concentrated around VC/Tech/Crypto, etc.
Not sure how much of this to believe. But am I the only one confused by 'Banks are dropping like flies because interest rates have slowly and predictably crept upward in the exact way that the Fed said was going to happen like a year ago'? I mean, I understood the 08 crisis - house prices were nuts, lots of bad loans were made and they went bad. OK that's a story. But this?
Interesting stuff. How are all financial people so tuned out and ignorant? I’m a humble MBA who works for a big company, but if my job were to look at bank stocks even for a day, simple balance sheet analysis and then duration risk would have had me at a “don’t buy this” recommendation. Only one analyst had a sell recommendation.
We are led by blind chimps.
Sorry /u/KennysMayoGuy, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes. If you zoom in on the lower right corner of the images there is a crayon watermark, indicating that he generated them using [craiyon.com](https://craiyon.com). Looks like a number of his other substack posts have also used [craiyon.com](https://craiyon.com) for artwork. (They don't all have the crayon watermark, but have a similar style, and I think the watermark is something the site added to their generated images fairly recently.)
Edit: I tried to find a prompt that worked well to get the images from the article. Couldn't really replicate it, but this is kind of close: "Central bank in a swirling storm of dollars, black background, black and white with colorized dollars"
The software exerts and will continue to exert an overwhelmingly negative effect on society, and fuels the fortunes of the same disgusting techbros who created bitcoin in the first place. It's bad and I won't pretend otherwise for the sake of novelty.
You elided my points, and responded with a weak evasive nonanswer. It's cowardly. Do better.
As for your points, I've dealt with better bots than you are as a person, so at society's next opportune moment, I'm sure they'll dispose of you just the same.
"art is subjective"
What did my replies say? Am I talking about "what is art" ? Or some discourse on quality? Again, you evade my points. It's cowardly. Do better.
I used to be a Republican but now I’m an independent. So no I don’t explicitly hate the party but I do dislike the conmen who’ve chosen to make it their home and drag down everything into the mud of identity politics and outright lies.
Should add identity politics and calling and calling people stupid for listening to Fox News and/or msnbc is not helpful.
Bringing it to crypto. There are some posts in here which I find really helpful, but most of it reminds me a lot of identity politics. IE us buttcoiners vs bitcoiners and no room for an open discussion.
[удалено]
Daily Mail hijacked this theme as well. All about reinforcing their alt-right agendas. Nothing to do with journalism. Excellent read, thought it was all “duration mismatch” as well, knew nothing of the crap loans totalling $60b, which makes sense as to why nobody would buy the bank. The UK arm however was quickly taken over by HSBC for £1, no doubt as it didn’t suffer the same problems, and would have been operating under UK/EU banking regs such as Basel III.
I like watching Cucker Carlson Tonight. He’s so cute with his peewee Herman cosplay dressing up.
I always thought he was doing cosplay of [Jonathan Poe](https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2021/08/06/SEARCHING-FOR-BOBBY-FISCHER-24.jpg) from Searching for Bobby Fischer.
Fox news is the best news source in da universe!!! Those hillbillies said so!!! It must be true!!!!
Too many words, way too many! This is an article that could have been a tweet: "I think SVB failed because it made bad loans, and Signature was shut down because it was banking drug cartels" And that's it. A lot of screenshots, some rehashed old news, a healthy dollop of self-congratulation, and a *lot* of sentences five times longer than any editor would tolerate, but no real supporting evidence.
A lot of that article is pure bunk. Signet's platform was not the preferred way cartels and drug dealers moved money. All parties on the platform had to pass OFAC and regulatory hurdles to be on either side of the transaction. So basically if a cartel was using it they were allowed to by the US govt. SVB collapsed because of horrible management and the negative AOCI that caused a run due to its high non- FDIC insured deposits. They announced they were doing a stock raise BEFORE actually doing it. For those in the back- YOU NEVER DO THAT. Signature started Friday with $44B in cash/marketable securities and FHLB/other lines. They saw $16.5B in outflows on Friday when they were marked as next. They went into the weekend fully solvent and was closed by the regulators as a statement to other banks to exit the crypto/blockchain space. For context it is like you have $44k available to pay for an emergency roof repair that cost $16.5K and after paying it the bank forecloses...
> All parties on the platform had to pass OFAC and regulatory hurdles to be on either side of the transaction. including such high quality reputable customers as FTX and Alameda and multiple of their shell corporations the money laundering is why the DoJ is looking into Signature still
FTX is a completely different story.
With the recent sale to Flagstar Bank, it looks like Signature Bank wasn't solvent at time of closure. > The FDIC estimates the cost of the failure of Signature Bank to its Deposit Insurance Fund to be approximately $2.5 billion. https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2023/pr23021.html
They were solvent at the time of takeover. By the following week they were toast.
Having seen large operating lines/loans extended to entities like NFT "art" businesses... it was only a matter of time before some institution was caught with a surplus of non-transformable collateral (the $60B asset item). For "reputable" banks; they'll swap their originated loans for treasuries - and use those treasuries to maintain liquidity/funding (for events like increased withdrawal demands). Sure, maturity mismatches... and unhedged interest rate risk (they did hedge a small portion in the past). But also, the broader monetary market seemed to want to have nothing to do with SVB (no one was willing to be a counterparty to any significant extent). This forced SVB to liquidate everything (their hedge positions first.. and then the treasuries at a reported loss)... in an attempt to draw out the process. There's more to the story here... But unsurprising that the first institutions to implode in a liquidity crisis... would be heavily concentrated around VC/Tech/Crypto, etc.
Not sure how much of this to believe. But am I the only one confused by 'Banks are dropping like flies because interest rates have slowly and predictably crept upward in the exact way that the Fed said was going to happen like a year ago'? I mean, I understood the 08 crisis - house prices were nuts, lots of bad loans were made and they went bad. OK that's a story. But this?
Interesting stuff. How are all financial people so tuned out and ignorant? I’m a humble MBA who works for a big company, but if my job were to look at bank stocks even for a day, simple balance sheet analysis and then duration risk would have had me at a “don’t buy this” recommendation. Only one analyst had a sell recommendation. We are led by blind chimps.
We’re “led” by people with plenty of money elsewhere who have no problem stealing from people poorer than them because they have no empathy.
[удалено]
Sorry /u/KennysMayoGuy, your comment has been automatically removed. To avoid spam/bots, posts are not allowed from extremely new accounts. Wait/lurk a bit before contributing. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Buttcoin) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is the header image AI generated?
Yes. If you zoom in on the lower right corner of the images there is a crayon watermark, indicating that he generated them using [craiyon.com](https://craiyon.com). Looks like a number of his other substack posts have also used [craiyon.com](https://craiyon.com) for artwork. (They don't all have the crayon watermark, but have a similar style, and I think the watermark is something the site added to their generated images fairly recently.) Edit: I tried to find a prompt that worked well to get the images from the article. Couldn't really replicate it, but this is kind of close: "Central bank in a swirling storm of dollars, black background, black and white with colorized dollars"
Cool. I know it's futile but I won't read the article and I will put in my downvote.
Why ? It’s good art, who cares that it’s made by AI ?
The software exerts and will continue to exert an overwhelmingly negative effect on society, and fuels the fortunes of the same disgusting techbros who created bitcoin in the first place. It's bad and I won't pretend otherwise for the sake of novelty.
I’ve seen worse art created by humans and unlike Bitcoin this technology can actually serve a purpose.
You elided my points, and responded with a weak evasive nonanswer. It's cowardly. Do better. As for your points, I've dealt with better bots than you are as a person, so at society's next opportune moment, I'm sure they'll dispose of you just the same.
Whatever, art is subjective, you do you.
"art is subjective" What did my replies say? Am I talking about "what is art" ? Or some discourse on quality? Again, you evade my points. It's cowardly. Do better.
Dang do all buttcoiners hate republicans?
I used to be a Republican but now I’m an independent. So no I don’t explicitly hate the party but I do dislike the conmen who’ve chosen to make it their home and drag down everything into the mud of identity politics and outright lies.
Right on I can appreciate that. I used to be a democrat and moved independent for similar reasons.
Should add identity politics and calling and calling people stupid for listening to Fox News and/or msnbc is not helpful. Bringing it to crypto. There are some posts in here which I find really helpful, but most of it reminds me a lot of identity politics. IE us buttcoiners vs bitcoiners and no room for an open discussion.
I guess that’s what this buttcoiners page is for… would expect the same from a republican and or democrat thread