Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I don't understand why you two are arguing about gold here?? And why you are doing it a year later? Meanwhile, HBAN just reported earnings that was just OK I guess. Stock has bounced off of $13.17 resistance a few times now and can't seem to break out. I was hoping to see a dividend boost this quarter.
Like I keep saying...LOL...one cannot eat or drink gold. Try bringing me a rock of gold for a roll of toilet paper...LOL...I'd tell you to go away and come back with something more tangible. 🤣
Just looking back at some old posts. Over the last 20 years gold is up about 300%, which is GREAT for gold. Now go look at AAPL. Now go add AAPL dividends. Lets make this even easier. Had you bought the SPX ...
Maybe. Coming to resistance at $12.146 and again at $12.66. Once upon a time, HBAN would raise their dividend every July, typically by 10%. Sometimes they include a stock split (which is how I got so many shares). I am glad to see the dividend back over 5%, but the way they got there doesn't thrill me.
Sounds just like something an American would say. You dissappear just like the dollar reserve status is. Buy physical boys. Thank me later. Miners to. Ways to go to catch gold prices;)
People keep recommending others to buy gold and silver. For all we know they could be investing in painted rocks, just like what happened to JP Morgen finding out the nickel they bought was bags of rocks? LOL
Well, that's your opinion. Mine is, the Fed created this debacle and will let a few banks fall before offering a bailout. The reality of both banking and insurance isn't that different from a giant Ponzi scheme. They take in money, then loan it out to others. If the faucet ever stops dripping, or people start demanding their money, there is no choice but to fail.
I see more RED days ahead. People need to question the TRUE information and value of EACH bank. Have the books been tampered with in EACH bank. If the books were truly up to par, none of this would be going on.
This is reminiscent of what happened when they let Lehman Brothers and a couple others fail, before coming in to bail out AIG and Goldman Sachs. They've got to show the public they will let a couple fail for show, before they save the bigger boys. Sadly, this time it's the regional banks to suffer.
So funny. Getting bailed out with the same crap that created this from. Worthless paper currency. Keep an eye out of Asia. Xi will be speaking to the world in English. It’s the end of these worthless paper currencies!!! Better covert those things to physical gold and silver.
Hope I'm allowed to re-post this, but this sums up our current bank crisis.
What the SVB closure may mean for markets The closure is unlikely to trigger a crisis, but may have other impacts.
BY JURRIEN TIMMER, DIRECTOR OF GLOBAL MACRO FOR FIDELITY MANAGEMENT & RESEARCH COMPANY (FMRCO), FIDELITY VIEWPOINTS – 03/13/2023 5 MIN READ Email Facebook. Twitter. LinkedIn. Print Decorative image Key takeaways Regulators have put new measures in recent days to help ensure that the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) closure doesn't escalate into a broader banking crisis. However, what happened at SVB is indicative of a more widespread mismatch between bank assets and liabilities, which could have implications for bank profit margins. It's too soon to tell if the events of the past week will influence the trajectory of the Fed's rate-hiking cycle. News has been breaking fast in recent days in the aftermath of the closures of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and Signature Bank. While the news cycle has been moving quickly and markets are still adjusting, here is an initial look at what has happened so far, and what it may mean for markets.
What happened at SVB About the expert
Jurrien Timmer is the director of global macro in Fidelity's Global Asset Allocation Division, specializing in global macro strategy and active asset allocation. He joined Fidelity in 1995 as a technical research analyst.
In very simple terms, SVB experienced massive deposit growth over the past few years. This was at least in part driven by a boom in venture capital. It invested a chunk of these deposits in long-dated bonds, at a time when yields were at generational lows.
As interest rates rose, the prices of those long-dated bonds fell (bond prices move inversely to interest rates), creating substantial investment losses for SVB. After SVB announced that it had lost $1.8 billion in asset sales, the bank attempted to raise additional investment capital last week, but was unable to. Many customers then rapidly withdrew deposits, and finally the bank was seized by regulators on Friday.
Once the dust has settled, we can discuss the causes of the SVB episode. But for now, the more pressing questions are: Could the events of the past week have the potential to escalate to a systemic event, such as a large-scale banking crisis? Even if not, could there be other impacts for the financial sector? And what might this episode mean for the Fed's rate-hiking cycle?
Here is my opinion, at this initial stage, on those questions.
This is unlikely to escalate into a systemic bank crisis The US's primary safeguard against bank runs is, of course, FDIC insurance. FDIC standard insurance covers up to $250,000 per depositor, per bank, per account ownership category. While there was initially a lack of clarity over what might happen to SVB depositors holding more than that amount at the bank, the Fed, FDIC, and Treasury issued a joint statement over the weekend confirming that depositors would have access to all their money starting Monday.
Another weekend announcement from regulators was the creation of the Bank Term Funding Program, or BTFP, to serve as an additional backstop. The BTFP will lend money to banks that need cash to meet deposit withdrawals, and let banks use some types of bonds and debt assets as collateral for those loans (with the intention of helping to prevent repeat occurrences of what happened at SVB—so that banks don't need to sell bonds at losses in order to meet withdrawals).
In my opinion, these measures should help reduce any risk that the incident triggers a systemic event.
But further, it's important to remember that this has been primarily a liquidity event (i.e., there were insufficient liquid assets on hand to meet immediate cash demands), rather than a solvency crisis (such as one in which a bank simply has insufficient equity relative to its debt). The financial crisis in 2008 was both, and the regulation that followed has left the banking sector in a much stronger position.
Yet, there could be broader implications for the financial sector Get more Viewpoints. Sign up for the Fidelity Viewpoints® weekly email for our latest insights. Subscribe now. At the same time, this episode does bring to light the fact that banks have been paying depositors much less than competing short-term vehicles do. This typically happens during tightening cycles, but the spread is particularly large now—with banks generally paying about 0.5% on deposits right now, compared with a 4.5% average money-market yield.
After the events of the past week, banks may now have to start competing for those deposits, by paying higher rates. But paying higher rates on deposits could eat into net interest margins (the difference between what banks earn on the loans they make and pay on the deposits they hold), impacting the overall profitability of the financial sector. Even if they don't start offering higher rates on deposits, any banks that use the new BTFP lending facility will have to pay a rate significantly higher than current deposit rates.
So, even though SVB is unlikely to lead to a systemic crisis, it seems that there could indeed be some lasting repercussions for the financial sector.
Potential implications for the Fed's rate-hike cycle There's an old adage that says during Fed tightening cycles, the Fed usually keeps raising rates until something "breaks." In 2007 it was subprime mortgages, in 1998 it was Long-Term Capital Management, and so on.
In my view, the key question right now is whether the collapse of SVB and the creation of the BTFP mark the "breaking point" for this Fed cycle. Because if so, it has implications for the valuation of all assets, including stocks.
What happened at SVB speaks to the overall asset-liability mismatch that is now happening for many institutions. Banks generally borrow at the short-term end of the yield curve (i.e., with deposits), and lend at the long-term end of the yield curve (i.e., with bonds and mortgages). Under normal conditions, short-term rates are lower than long-term rates, and so banks keep the difference between the short-term rates they pay and long-term rates they earn.
But currently the yield curve is "inverted," with short-term rates significantly higher than long-term rates. This inversion is, essentially, a by-product of the Fed's rate-hike cycle. And it's also led to the mismatch experienced by SVB and other institutions.
And herein lies the dilemma that the Fed faces. On the one hand, inflation remains too high and unemployment is at multi-decade lows—which suggests more rate hikes. But now, the Fed needs to create a liquidity backstop to solve a problem that is the very by-product of this rate-hike cycle.
I'm inclined to think that if the SVB saga fades into the background, then the Fed will resume its hawkish posturing. But if SVB is actually a shot across the bow that the Fed is going too far, then it will be a moment of truth for the Fed and for this market cycle. In that case, the Fed might have to choose between financial stability and containing inflation expectations.
The Fed is at fault for the banks tanking right now. Possibly the only thing to save them will be bailouts.....followed by more inflation. Since you are writing a book, add a chapter on "what not to do".
One more thing, we have to get away from using taxpayer money from the Fed to bail out anyone. We have to let businesses AND banks succeed or fail on their own. This was one of the lessons and takeaways from 2008, at least from my perspective.
EVERYTHING is way overpriced, food, housing, etc. This is part of my own discussion in a book I am writing. Greed has taken over and now everyone is paying the price for it. Just my own thoughts and views.
LMAO...Jim Cramer? I never listen to him or his advise. Typically I have found that things go the opposite way with him. Banks are going to go down further, IMO. There has been way too much hype on news everywhere. People doing business on hyped-up information and not by REALITY! Just my thoughts.
Thanks for that. Yeah, I knew this wasn't going to be something just sluffed off. This is what happens when you jack with interest rates so quickly when they've been down for so long. This would be the equivalent to deep sea diving and getting the bends.
Also, HBAN may have had something in SVIB. If not, and they take on any of SVIB's debt, this will have an effect on HBAN's overall reports. Just my thoughts.
I've only been moderator of this board for how many years? Yet get removed if I don't post every 90 days. This isn't a penny stock! Not much to say here....well until this weekend
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
