Peregrine

The view that brinksmanship is beneficial is a bit myopic. Yeah in the short-term, Trump probably gets a few concessions from its allies and is able to beat his chest about what a great deal he made. Over the long-term, you alienate your friends who are now more likely to seek alternatives to working with you. Is that trade-off worth it? Probably for Trump who always thinks in zero-sum terms and is only in office for another 4 years. Not so for the country.

How are these tariffs even going to be implemented? With products that criss-cross the border multiple times? I doubt that the Trump admin has thought through this with any level of detail. More likely that it's yet more brinksmanship tactics from the guy who made a career out of brinksmanship. Let Canada and Mexico make some announcements about fentanyl control and give him the off-ramp that he's seeking.

Clear to see who thinks of everything as a zero-sum game rather than what free trade really is - win/win. I suspect the tariffs aren't going to have as massive of an effect as some expect given how much the CAD has depreciated against the USD already. Also, to the extent that it'll force some of Canada's cities to crack down on its fentanyl problems, it might be a long-term positive.

"Perfect" isn't the standard. How about "decent human being?" I'm not talking about him cheating on his wife. The stuff about him and Epstein is becoming more apparent over time.

Never lionize famous people. https://nypost.com/2024/08/02/business/bill-gates-tell-all-book-claims-microsoft-banned-young-interns-from-being-alone-with-flirty-mogul-before-divorce-kid-in-a-candy-store/

Looks like regulators finally waking up: https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-officials-assessing-possible-manipulation-banking-shares-source-2023-05-04/

And just like that, FT deleted their original story. Pretty slimy if they put false speculation out there to benefit some shorts.

Wow. I wonder how much of this is being manipulated by the short and distort artists.

Re: juiciness Because FRC is worth more to JPM than simply the market value of its loans. Re: quick receivership I don't see how this was at all rushed. FRC lost nearly all its deposits within a few weeks' time and was given nearly a whole month to find a private solution. And when it couldn't, this bank tried brinksmanship tactics by threatening its suitors that if they didn't save it the costs would be worse. You really think the FDIC should let this bank operate with no deposits of its own and negative NIM and generate losses for the foreseeable future?

"Juicy" terms? Based on FRC's own FV marks, JP Morgan paid $10 billion more than they should've to the FDIC! The longer it goes on, the worse the bid the FDIC gets. And the longer it goes on, the more desperate FRC gets. Back during the S&L crisis when probably more than a half of S&Ls were zombies and operating with negative equity, S&Ls kept upping the ante in raising deposit rates and driving further down the credit spectrum in a desperate bid to become viable. Needless to say, this is not good for the financial system.

Rapid receivership and sale happened all the time during the S&L and GFC crises, especially when a bank lost deposits at the rate that Signature, SVB and FRC did. Without rapid receivership and sale, the cost to the FDIC would've been a lot greater in all likelihood. The longer it goes on, the worse for the FDIC and the worse for the financial system.

It's kinda funny how posters in this thread somehow forgot that FRC was mark-to-market insolvent and based on their own FV marks, no less. They couldn't hold on to their deposits, which forced them to get high cost financing, which turned their bank upside down. The regulators didn't do that to them - if anything, they helped them. If there were no visible hand, this bank would've gone down a lot sooner and everyone owning the capital stack gets zero'd a lot quicker.

That number's from 2019. The 2021 census had the GTA at 7.3 million. With over 1 million new immigrants in Canada last year alone I have to imagine that the 2023 census is close to 8 million or above that. Not to mention that with urban sprawl what qualifies as GTA should be broader encompassing than the official definition.

The GTA probably has a population that's around 8 million now, on par with New York City. I remember 20 years ago when they had less than 5 million. I think it's surely the fastest growing developed city in the world. Combine this with housing NIMBYism and a public transport system that hasn't budged and it's really unsurprising why housing prices are what they are. The Tier 1 cities in China have the same problem with housing prices and they don't have the NIMBY problem because the state owns all the underlying land.

What I meant was that landlords will push back.