Post ATdhcD64ZfjNglQpKy by rootwyrm@weird.autos
 (DIR) More posts by rootwyrm@weird.autos
 (DIR) Post #ATdgQnRzUGXp0Yg3Wa by Malaclypse@better.boston
       2023-03-15T12:02:50Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kairyssdal @davidgura Unrealized losses of 2% of annual GDP seems bad.
       
 (DIR) Post #ATdhcD64ZfjNglQpKy by rootwyrm@weird.autos
       2023-03-15T12:16:07Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kairyssdal @davidgura <insert meme of the Fed repeatedly stepping on the rake they put out and blaming someone else>But let's also not downplay that bad actors deliberately engineered a run on SVB to personally profit from a collapse. It was precipitated by high profile SV people literally screaming that people would lose every cent if they didn't withdraw it all from SVB at once.
       
 (DIR) Post #ATdvErOWUodf4sp0b2 by judykrausbrown@masto.ai
       2023-03-15T14:48:44Z
       
       0 likes, 0 repeats
       
       @kairyssdal @davidgura Yes! I keep thinking, the thing is, they are *bonds*. If they are just held to maturity there *is* no loss, isn't that correct? They are not a LOSS loss, they are merely  illiquid. But if held, they will earn interest until maturity & be worth more that they were bought for. Shouldn't there be a different way of showing this on the accounting books? The real problem is:-the illiquidity of the bond investments PLUS-the bank run