Castanza

Yeah the chart is just a ballpark idea intended to point out outliers Do any of the banks show deposit withdrawals according to industry? I’d be willing to bet most are from high cash burn, high rev, no profit businesses (tech). Most small businesses outside of tech are probably more concerned with running their operations than where specifically their money is held. Probably the exact reason SVB was flooded with VC and tech capital. “It was easy to go there so everyone went there”. Looking at banks with low tech exposure, recession proof depositors (businesses) and thin commercial real estate loan books is probably the play. Question is can you even get that granular?

The trades future has never looked so bright.

Semi useful chart

@boilermaker75 I do see your perspective on liberal arts course and their importance. My perspective is more from a cost centric/time/efficiency basis than anything else. I do agree the humanities are important subjects of study…just difficult for me to see them fitting into higher education in its current state.

Yup, in a world that is moving faster and faster we are lengthening the time it takes for kids to become mature adults and do "adult things." Higher education for 90% of the schools out there has just become one big daycare for immature 20 year-olds. Most kids today don't even have jobs when they are in their adolescence years. We have generations of 20 years-olds with no life experience, no work experience, mommy and daddy subsidized lifestyles, and mounds of debt with very little realistic expectations of the "real world." Instead of working through those self discovery/life challenge processes when they are 16-20 they are now doing it when they are 22-26. I was building and installing counter tops and cabinets with my dad when I was 13 on weekends. Had a small grass cutting business when I was 16. Worked a retail job on top of that 15-20hrs a week. Was a camp counselor every summer for a few weeks. Played school sports from 7th-12th grade. This wasn't anything special either! Most kids I knew had similar responsibilities in their life. Most kids today do a few volunteer things just to put on their college application and spend 80% of their time in sports trying to get a scholarship and call it a day. The US education system is creating less responsible people at older ages. It's going to be one Hell of a ride when the influencer/tiktok generation starts to have children.

When I was studying Geology I had to take a literature course. We spent an entire semester reading some fictional novel about Native Americans. We had a ton of papers and the professor graded extremely hard. I was in the class with a bunch of other STEM majors and everyone absolutely hated the course. It took away a ton of time from being able to study important topics like Organic Chemistry and Calc. It provided NO benefit to our future professions and simply cost us time and money. We don't make trade schools teach liberal arts on top of learning how to wire a breaker box. Why should we force STEM majors to do the same? If k-12 is to prepare you for college with the a base load knowledge and knowhow then why do we need to repeat it at the university level? Most of it seems like a way to justify the jobs of some PhD academics who studied some obscure topic and then give them value by forcing their course on students who couldn't give a damn. If you have a kid who is an all-star at math let them focus on math. They're paying for it after all. Look at med school here in the US. You have to go 4 years undergrad before going for your MD. Plenty of countries out there that don't have this requirement and graduate very proficient doctors. You can go right to med school and your studies are all geared towards your future profession. When cost is a problem you have to find ways to cut the fat.

Peter Thiel and George Soros are geniuses with IQ's probably in the 130+ range. Hardly comparable to your average student headed to college that comes from an average household with average income to pay for ridiculously expensive courses. When Thiel and Soros went to college the cost and environment were very different than today. You need to adapt the system to the environment it resides in. The US Liberal Arts system has been getting progressively worse and worse on a global scale. Making future mech engineers, programmers, accountants, or biology teachers sit through a repeat course of poly sci, literature, or phys ed improves their core skill set how? It's simply a way to rake them over the coals for more money. Liberal arts has it's place! I think k-12 should be much more rigorous than it currently is. Less focus on sports and more focus on academics would be a big plus for this country.

Eh idk, wtf is the point of k-12 if when you get to university you have to take Eng 1&2, Political Science, Literature, some elective like physical education/health and then an additional elective like philosophy? Probably half dozen more courses you have to take that are useless towards your degree. If you don't know that by 12th grade then you shouldn't be going to college. It's a way to nickel and dime students and take away time from studying their core curriculum. Yeah, you can take AP in HS and test out of some of those courses. But in a lot of HS the AP classes are capped and not everyone can get in. that's how it was where I went. We had like 500 graduating class and maybe 75 students in the AP courses. I was lucky to get in a few and skip Eng 1 and Political Science in college. You could easily cut Higher Education timeline in half in the US. K-12 is useless IF you require the same courses when you get to college.

Yup, my question as well. If those HTM securities moved down in value as bond rates went up and forced some to sell then MTM wouldn’t we also see the reverse of rates come down? I guess the question is how does the accounting around this work?

Ok gotcha, that makes sense from that standpoint Thanks

But isn't it counter intuitive to approach the issue of fewer good, more money by killing jobs? Why not let those prices inflate till consumers no longer want to pay? At that point you either innovate to bring prices down or go out of business because nobody wants your product. <---losing jobs due to lack of market demand vs intentional destruction. Or are we past that because we don't have a free market to begin with? It just seems so asinine to hear "We need to kill jobs so people have less to spend on products that are too expensive." @changegonnacome Unproductive means what exactly in your post above?

DPSGY

SU, OXY, BRKb Starter in TPL again

This whole issue just shows how addicted to ZIRP we've become. Every f-boy pundit is screaming their head off for rate cuts. Has JPow overdone it? Yeah, maybe idk....I do think the hikes were way too fast. "Like a junkie kicking a bad habit"

Wells 9.5b shelf offering https://www.teletrader.com/wells-fargo-announces-9-5b-mixed-shelf-offering/news/details/59639946

Seems to be a small rumor that Buffett could be buying PNC. Saw some references on fintwit and then Motley Fool Money had speculated about this as well and also said PNC. Anyone else here something similar?

Id rather have a job and choose to cut back, drive less and spend less than not have a job and pay less when I have less money to spend in the first place

The difference is Joe who gets laid off from the local bus garage making $16/hr with decant benefits isn't going to be picking from 6 other bus garages paying similar wages. No, he's going to be looking at the local salvage yard, two men and a truck, or a shelf stocking job at Petco. All those tech people are getting laid off from over inflated positions with overinflated salaries. They will ALL land on their feet just fine. Most of them (if smart) should have a decent savings and be able to afford living expenses for a few months while they figure it out. And if they don't that's on them. Meanwhile Joe from the bus garage is three weeks into finding a new job. Probably has less than 5k in his bank account at any given time. Joe doesn't have enough money to relocate to a new area with more jobs. Joe is one car breakdown or dentist/doctor visit from his kid to having to max his credit cards or worse pull from his 401k to make a payment. Just like a business FCF is king. Rich people make decision to be levered to the gills. Poor people are leverage by default. All I'm saying is, there is a lot less flexibility for the lower class than there is for us. When we make a choice between going to a steak house or Chipotle, there is someone else making the choice of putting money into a new muffler or paying their kids Little League initiation fee. I can see both arguments. I don't envy Powell and his position as it's not easy (dare I say impossible) to balance all that. there will always be unintended consequences.

Maybe the poor wouldn't need handouts if they weren't constantly getting fucked by the rich. I am against welfare and the expansion of it for 90% of people. But with all the meddling that has gone on for the past two decades and zero growth to show for it in terms of wages for the middle and lower middle class how can anyone continue to justify more economic planning? The rich get their cake, eat it, then just expand welfare to feel better about themselves. How many people making sub 50k a year were buying stocks the past two days? I do agree that many poor "fuck themselves". I agree with the IQ statement and have said the same thing on this board before. It's a real problem. 10% of the pop has IQ below 83 and we also have a 10% poverty rate. Coincidence? I think not. @RedLion Say the Fed cuts 2-3m jobs. Whos jobs? It will be mom and pop shops, service industry jobs, construction jobs, labor jobs. So you can say the poor fuck themselves (I agree, a lot of them do). But they are also the primary ones who get fucked in situations like this. I think what pisses me off most is all of these policies lead to more corporatocracy. Same thing during Covid...who got shut down? Not the big guys.

Yup and I completely understand that perspective. You're probably right I'm taking future cash off the table. But nothing is certain in the future: "Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush". My risk appetite is more flexible than someone who has a subscription based lifestyle. My cashflow for investments is higher in the near term and gives me more flexibility for other investments. Jobs wise I feel way more flexible and less dependent on the place I work now. As I said, completely personal opinion and I know historically speaking I am probably losing out on some returns (should history repeat). There is also a life enjoyment aspect to this. I know plenty of people who own 500k+ houses at good rates but their housing costs to income ratios are off. So they are handicapped with investments, savings, and simply going and doing things; something that is often overlooked in my opinion. I don't want to only enjoy life when I'm 65. Most people invest to be rich but I invest and save to have peace of mind and generally live "free".

That answer depends entirely on where you fall on the socio-economic ladder. You widen the wealth gap doing this because you force poor families to cut back more on spending and wage growth at the bottom of the ladder also stagnates. Both of these reduce savings (less income) and economic mobility (fewer job opportunities). Who isn't affected? Those in the upper class. The middle class is affected as well, but they generally can absorb it and have more mobility. In the end Your always fucking the poor. I'm not a fan of all the meddling personally. I think what you read in textbooks doesn't work in the real world as it's intended. Frankly I don't think anyone knows what the fuck they are doing when it comes to managing complex economic systems. It's just guess work and dick swinging. Not a single policy between 1970 and 2018 has been a net positive for the middle and lower class individuals. US Unemployment Rate US Inflation Rate

It's a tough thing to do as the culture the last decade has been "Why pay off loans or hold cash when you can get 7%+ in the market?". Nothing wrong with that thinking, but people miss the stress and fragility that can come with "high capex" lifestyles. Wife and I put investing 2nd to debt and had a goal of paying everything off by 30. Paid the house off this past year and live completely debt free. Feels great not being owned by anyone and not can focus completely on savings and investing moving forward. Did I sacrifice some solid returns but not going 100% in investing and making minimum payments on low interest debt? Yeah I sure did, but you can't put a price on peace of mind. Just my two cents.

The thing about Wells is you're always waiting for another shoe to drop and leave you holding the bag. I've been in and out of it since 2017. I didn't pick up any when it was in the 20's during Covid. Everyone seemed to think the asset cap was going to be removed then due to market conditions as well....No Bueno Pretty much put this in the too hard pile along with Citi, CS, DB, for all of eternity. Wells is interesting though; they have some really unique assets (rail cars) but I think it will always underperform until that cap is lifted (if ever).

Damn completely forgot about that with Wells, has there been any discussion around the topic?

Haha good catch! Still significant and a bad day to leave!