ADVERTISEMENT

How is there not a thread about the insolvent banks?

“The number of banks on the Problem Bank List, those with a CAMELS composite rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’ increased from 52 in fourth quarter 2023 to 63 in first quarter 2024. The number of problem banks represented 1.4% of total banks, which was within the normal range for non-crisis periods of 1% to 2% of all banks.
 
Took me a bit of digging but it’s between 1-2% of all banks, which is considered normal. That’s why it hasn’t shown up as news on Bloomberg or WSJ.
Be interested in your numbers. We are at fiscal YE so it's probably the reporting.


Forbes Says 25 a year and 560 since 2000. "63" in a year seems high. Granted this the brink of insolvency not that actually went/go.*
 
Be interested in your numbers. We are at fiscal YE so it's probably the reporting.


Forbes Says 25 a year and 560 since 2000. 63 in a year seems high.
Are those actual bank failures? The fdic list is just banks that are teetering. There’s a lot of paper losses for those banks but paper losses are only a problem if they don’t have liquidity, which still may prove to be a problem at some point if commercial real estate doesn’t snap back soon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ree4 and praguehawk
Are those actual bank failures? The fdic list is just banks that are teetering. There’s a lot of paper losses for those banks but paper losses are only a problem if they don’t have liquidity, which still may prove to be a problem at some point if commercial real estate doesn’t snap back soon.

$517 billion in unrealized losses. Is that a big problem or can that be absorbed by the system?

 
Are those actual bank failures? The fdic list is just banks that are teetering. There’s a lot of paper losses for those banks but paper losses are only a problem if they don’t have liquidity, which still may prove to be a problem at some point if commercial real estate doesn’t snap back soon.
Thought I linked it. Yea, on average 25 per year.





That could be total financial institutions so it could also represent much more than just "banks".
 
Just for some extra laughs - the OP during one of his fixated posting sessions this morning - posted this minutes apart in a different thread: "The jig is up on stupidity."

Maybe it is up on stupidity, but apparently not gullibility
This gonna be good.


Go on Thorne, what about this is "gullible".



I'll grab a coffee refill while you respond.
 
This gonna be good.


Go on Thorne, what about this is "gullible".



I'll grab a coffee refill while you respond.

How about you make your case for the following first, it will make the gullible case self evident. Maybe go back to whatever wackjob tweet that first triggered you into this thread in the first place.

"That's ****ing nuts."

"I would have to believe the left are looking at this as the eat the rich moment."
 
FDIC put out last night 63 banks are on the brink of insolvency.


That's ****ing nuts.

It would be helpful if you read something other than right wing news sites.

Banks like any other business sometimes fail. Now if a whole bunch are failing at once it's a problem of course but this isn't a whole bunch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RileyHawk
The FDIC is a right wing news site..................





Go sit in the corner.

And if you read on you would have learned that this is a normal amount of banks to be failing.

It's like driving past one business that is going out of business and concluding the economy is crashing. Even in great economic times businesses still fail.

Same with banks.
 
How about you make your case for the following first, it will make the gullible case self evident. Maybe go back to whatever wackjob tweet that first triggered you into this thread in the first place.

"That's ****ing nuts."

"I would have to believe the left are looking at this as the eat the rich moment."
So you have nothing.


The feds said this, this isn't a tweet from some dickhead.


Typical throne. Waste of a decent cup of coffee.
 
And if you read on you would have learned that this is a normal amount of banks to be failing.
There is nothing normal about 517 billion, "normal" is for roughly 25 financial institutions a year to fail. That all financial institutions. The fdic said there are 63 banks that are insolvent or at risk of insolvency that isn't normal, anytime.



Also, I love me some establishment loving dems.
 
So you have nothing.


The feds said this, this isn't a tweet from some dickhead.


Typical throne. Waste of a decent cup of coffee.

So it's not nuts? It's nothing?


Typical Whiskey, wound up over nothing. Shocked when other aren't also wound up over the same nothing. Shocked that there isn't already a thread over nothing. Already has a theory of what the liberal narrative is over nothing.


.....gullible whiskey, always an easy mark. Whether it's someone on twitter winding you up and you bring it here, or someone here winding you up and luring you to a parking lot.
 
But you put it outside of or completely ignored the context of what is normal.

From a post YOU LIKED.

"“The number of banks on the Problem Bank List, those with a CAMELS composite rating of ‘4’ or ‘5’ increased from 52 in fourth quarter 2023 to 63 in first quarter 2024. The number of problem banks represented 1.4% of total banks, which was within the normal range for non-crisis periods of 1% to 2% of all banks."
 
So it's not nuts? It's nothing?


Typical Whiskey, wound up over nothing. Shocked when other aren't also wound up over the same nothing. Shocked that there isn't already a thread over nothing. Already has a theory of what the liberal narrative is over nothing.


.....gullible whiskey, always an easy mark. Whether it's someone on twitter winding you up and you bring it here, or someone here winding you up and luring you to a parking lot.
Again, you are incapable of responding so you go to the well of personal attacks.



There isn't anything normal about this.
 
Again, you are incapable of responding so you go to the well of personal attacks.



There isn't anything normal about this.

Personal attacks? You mean your history of consistently being wound up to the point of needing multiple time outs from the board? Some would call that relevant context to you overreacting.... again.

But, maybe this time your fixated approach is justified, make your case for why this is: ****ing nuts

Then go and make your case for you would have to believe the left are looking at this as the eat the rich moment.


Maybe you'll convince everyone else too and you'll stop the mockery and snickering like a total alpha would do.
 
Personal attacks? You mean your history of consistently being wound up to the point of needing multiple time outs from the board? Some would call that relevant context to you overreacting.... again.

But, maybe this time your fixated approach is justified, make your case for why this is: ****ing nuts

Then go and make your case for you would have to believe the left are looking at this as the eat the rich moment.


Maybe you'll convince everyone else too and you'll stop the mockery and snickering like a total alpha would do.
Hahaha, you know nothing of how an Alpha would handle this situation.



The link has been provided.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT