the i dont care about politics anymore thread

[magnetaress]

Originally Posted by aussenseiter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's mostly girl babies. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think China learned its lesson here. Give it time!

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by Basanos [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Even if that is the case, is a loan more likely to default (or whatever the nerd term is) because it's tied to an LGBT cause?

It's still dubious even if there was "evidence", and nobody has supplied a scrap of that.

Rightoids seem to be interpreting this as some kind of breakdown in leftism or wokeness, which reeks of their own desperation for even a pyrrhic victory... when it's really just capitalism doing what it always does, from my subjective point of view.

I'm of a mind that there should be fewer CEOs no matter their beliefs or orientations, not 'more gay CEOs'. There's plenty of grifters that are gay, or minorities, or whatever.

at the end of the day it's just poor management. and we really do need to hold bankers to higher accountability because of the power they wield, the same way we would hold police officers accountable to standards greater than the public, if this weren't a dystopia.

loans are more likely to default when you put an ideology ahead of risk management. from the few things i read about the SVB's corporate ideology work I did for an ERM firm it seems like SVB had big hopes and dreams about advancing the work in rights and equality, noble causes for sure. It looks like all those loans were issued because SVB wanted to believe in those causes, which is also noble.

They gambled and lost, cut their losses and ran

and it'll happen again.

[Patriam1066]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Wouldn’t these rollbacks also affect other banks?

And yet somehow, without chief risk officers, they were smart enough not to go all in on an investment who’s value tanks as soon as the feds raise interest rates….at a time when our gov’t spending was higher than its ever been

Can’t make non-stupid decisions without a chief risk officer!

That’s why we have regulations. Business and poli sci majors are the retards at universities. Never trust a banker, a lawyer, or a politician. They are all low IQ

[Basanos]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only issues I have with it are:

1. It was a common sense mistake, and one that other banks knew not to make. It should be punished by suffering the consequences of that mistake, otherwise it sets a precedent to make risky investments because Daddy Government will always come to bail you out…assuming you are a democrat-staffed bank

2. Jut coincidence that they chose to bail out a clearly democrat staffed bank. Of course they can always fall back on not wanting to cause a run on the banks but I don’t really see how a single bailout somehow prevents that. You can’t bail out all the banks and the people know it

I see it as your average high-end bank employee being a capitalist, and fundamentally conservative, regardless of whether they vote for Democrats or Republicans. So it's just rich conservatives bailing out other rich conservatives to me, and selling it to the public as preventing a chain reaction run on banks.

If this bank had been Wells Fargo, not the Silicon Valley one - would the right be trying to sell it as a failure of wokeness? I don't think so. I think most people are brainwashed to not see this shit as just the late-stage capitalism it really is. That's why partisans want you to adopt partisan talking points, it gets you thinking about the problem in the wrong way.

This is the same argument we have about activist judges. They're all activists. That's the role. They're supposed to make judgements.

[unsunghero]

Originally Posted by Basanos [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I see it as your average high-end bank employee being a capitalist, and fundamentally conservative, regardless of whether they vote for Democrats or Republicans. So it's just rich conservatives bailing out other rich conservatives to me, and selling it to the public as preventing a chain reaction run on banks.

If this bank had been Wells Fargo, not the Silicon Valley one - would the right be trying to sell it as a failure of wokeness? I don't think so. I think most people are brainwashed to not see this shit as just the late-stage capitalism it really is. That's why partisans want you to adopt partisan talking points, it gets you thinking about the problem in the wrong way.

This is the same argument we have about activist judges. They're all activists. That's the role. They're supposed to make judgements.

Whoa whoa whoa had the bank been Wells Fargo bail it out. That’s my bank

Actually fuck em too. I still get my pitiful $2k in my checking account refunded via the FDIC, after that…fuck em!

[Basanos]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

at the end of the day it's just poor management. and we really do need to hold bankers to higher accountability because of the power they wield, the same way we would hold police officers accountable to standards greater than the public, if this weren't a dystopia.

loans are more likely to default when you put an ideology ahead of risk management. from the few things i read about the SVB's corporate ideology work I did for an ERM firm it seems like SVB had big hopes and dreams about advancing the work in rights and equality, noble causes for sure. It looks like all those loans were issued because SVB wanted to believe in those causes, which is also noble.

They gambled and lost, cut their losses and ran

and it'll happen again.

I definitely agree it will happen again. We go through a crash-rebuild cycle, and there's less and less time between the crests and troughs. That suggests something is coming.

However, I would think, of all entities, a bank would look at this shit in purely economic terms. Even if it is an activist bank, investing in whatever social causes it wants to, there's analysts who make money gauging the risk. Apparently doing a shitty job, too. It's cheaper to insure cars that are white, and more expensive to insure cars that are red.

Remember this one? https://www.businessinsider.com/anti...months-2022-11

This is also just capitalism functioning as intended. I don't see that as my disdain for conservatives being vindicated, that's way too simple.

[Basanos]

Originally Posted by unsunghero [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Whoa whoa whoa had the bank been Wells Fargo bail it out. That’s my bank

Actually fuck em too. I still get my pitiful $2k in my checking account refunded via the FDIC, after that…fuck em!

I have money wrapped up in Wells Fargo too, but I'd still say let them fail if they failed. But I have a support network, and my house is paid off. Lotsa people don't, so they'd see the 'let it fail' for the average schmuck as a bit callous.

I have less in Wells Fargo than the FDIC backed minimum, so it's easy to say that. But if I had 250k+ to play with, none of you would ever hear from me again.

You hear that, kaveh? If you never want to see me whining about capitalism again, I can be bribed.

[Trexller]

i use ad blockers religiously, can't read that article or most that get linked.

some cnbc (or bloomberg?) article described how SVB basically disbanded their risk management dept and had like 1/10th of the staff required to gain a realistic picture of their investment risk.

seems like some CEO egos were unchecked and thought they could do that job better than trained and experienced specialists.

which does seem like the intention behind capitalism. cut the ERM dept, save millions, give yourself bonus for making the company more profitable, dump stocks when they inevitably go back, give self more bonus.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Basanos]

Yeah so do I on the ads, hate 'em all.

I was referring to GloriFi, the anti-woke bank that failed last year. Seemed like a misread from the get-go to me. The average person isn't eternally online enough to care enough to move their money into to a bank that explicitly doesn't... give out loans... to the woke? Or something?

I feel like GloriFi tanked simply because everyone who would have potentially used it because of their 'values' already has their money wrapped up in crypto or something, but that's just a hunch.

I also admit I had never even heard of SVB until it failed. I don't pay close attention to Silicon Valley anything because it's just an abyss of the worst America has to offer this world.

[Horza]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

some cnbc (or bloomberg?) article described how SVB basically disbanded their risk management dept and had like 1/10th of the staff required to gain a realistic picture of their investment risk.

Must be nice to write your own regulations and then have millions of people blame woke LGBT folks when the business inevitably fails.