Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (197249)	3/15/2023 3:47:49 AM
From: sense	Respond to of 220179

The market clearly still uncertain what will happen next... They have to sustain higher rates... The CPI came in "hot" today... so, the inflation risks have not abated at all (as the Fed said they would, and as I said they would not) ... They can't really back off higher rates without surrendering to higher inflation (which I've said they intended and would do all along... as inflation is the desired outcome in the policy they've pursued. But, I think they probably thought they'd engineer a market crash this summer as the excuse... rather than get well heeled banks going belly up as the "excuse"... needed to let inflation gain its head..) And, "they say"... the moves already made have solved the problems with the banks... so, press ahead... They have to reduce rates now... perhaps rapidly... The new (?) threat being recognized is in the (still growing) risk of financial instability... which means they can't continue pushing banks heads underwater as if it doesn't matter... And, "they say"... the "solution" they've come up with to "fix" the banks... isn't much of a solution. And that's clearly true. Thus far... the Fed have maintained "strategic ambiguity" on their next moves... and just let the market believe whatever it is they think "has to be what they will do"... ? But, of course... they can't do both of those things at the same time... and can't make everyone happy ? I think they have a bigger problem than they are acknowledging yet... As the big banks are swallow up the smaller ones... I think that will only highlight the problem with the fraud inherent in imposing a "tiered" system in banking... that insulates some ("systemically important") banks from having to care about the fact they're broke... while requiring others to liquidate for lesser deviations. When people figure out both... that the $9 trillion in QE is $9 trillion in accumulated bank losses that are "not counted"... and the banks have "changed the rules" to enable "bail ins"... direct takings of depositors money... to resolve their own financial shortcomings in the next crisis ? That's why people used to stuff cash under their mattresses instead of putting it in the bank... as stuffing the mattress generates a risk of your cash being stolen, but putting it in the banks guarantees it will be... I think it inordinately foolish to hold cash in the major banks... and those people flowing cash out of smaller banks into the major banks now... are probably going to lose it all... When they changed the rules to allow banks to take stupid risks... and then changed them again, to allow them to "take the depositors money" to backstop losses of bank capital... I'd quit using banks... as anything other than short term transaction conduits... as everything left in a bank now is an asset held at needless risk...