Stock market tips and experiences

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by cmyx6go

It's not just SVB. Most banks require that businesses keep the majority of their money at their bank. We have two small carve outs but otherwise all monies need to stay under one roof. Besides that, like you said, there is no way for a business to operate with a $250K cap on accounts. There should be separate rules for business.

NickyC - If the business depositors weren't covered, they would all go out of business and all their employees would be casualties. Not to mention all their vendors not getting paid. The trickle down is huge. I'm not talking Crypto or high risk businesses. A lot of solid people would be caught up. I'm not for throwing money around, but they had to cover the business depositors. Again, there should be separate rules for businesses.

The FDIC looked at excess deposit insurance previously and concluded (at that time) it wasn’t necessary. There are banking arrangements that allow customers to deposit funds into one bank, but have them spread by the bank to other banks to effectively increase deposited funds insured by the FDIC or move some into a brokerage insured by SIPC. Obviously, the more cash there is, the more difficult it is to deploy these strategies. I think some combination of a modest increase in FDIC coverage in light of inflation since last increase (maybe to $350K or $500K) and the ability for banks or depositors to buy coverage for excess deposits (either through the FDIC or private insurance reinsured by the FDIC) makes sense to reconsider and would (theoretically) put the cost of underwriting the insurance on the insured and reduce the risk of knee jerk bank runs. However, offering excess deposit insurance would likely necessitate high premiums and / or ratcheting up the regulation of banks (either legislatively or through private insurance covenants) so the insurers aren’t left holding a big bag of shit, which in turn might result in the banks raising fees for everyone and tightening credit as their investment returns reflect a lower risk tolerance. I think it’s more difficult to balance than it sounds, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be an updated evaluation.

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

So like non-gap earnings and creating a spin off divison or naa?

essentially to truly determine profits and health you have to read the full earnings report and determine health.

EBITA is another great bullshit term used to metric a company

[bagekko]

Increasing FDIC coverage to 350-500k won't make much of a difference. The majority of the money is corporate and most of the money will exceed even a $1m limit. Maybe less than 3% of the consumer has more than $250k, more than half the country has less than a paycheck in savings. It's mostly viewed as, oh it won't ever be needed, past 40yrs only a few banks failed before this month, and pretty clear the govt will step in to prevent them. Back when I was a kid, it was 100k. While an increase would save the trouble of having multiple banks, but you shouldn't have all your money in one bank anyways.

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

The FDIC looked at excess deposit insurance previously and concluded (at that time) it wasn’t necessary. There are banking arrangements that allow customers to deposit funds into one bank, but have them spread by the bank to other banks to effectively increase deposited funds insured by the FDIC or move some into a brokerage insured by SIPC. Obviously, the more cash there is, the more difficult it is to deploy these strategies. I think some combination of a modest increase in FDIC coverage in light of inflation since last increase (maybe to $350K or $500K) and the ability for banks or depositors to buy coverage for excess deposits (either through the FDIC or private insurance reinsured by the FDIC) makes sense to reconsider and would (theoretically) put the cost of underwriting the insurance on the insured and reduce the risk of knee jerk bank runs. However, offering excess deposit insurance would likely necessitate high premiums and / or ratcheting up the regulation of banks (either legislatively or through private insurance covenants) so the insurers aren’t left holding a big bag of shit, which in turn might result in the banks raising fees for everyone and tightening credit as their investment returns reflect a lower risk tolerance. I think it’s more difficult to balance than it sounds, but that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be an updated evaluation.

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY

essentially to truly determine profits and health you have to read the full earnings report and determine health.

EBITA is another great bullshit term used to metric a company

I don't follow GME at all but looked it up. The had GAAP earnings for the quarter, not just positive EBITDA. A very low tax rate helped them, but they had income before taxes. They still had a loss for the full year (GAAP and Non-GAAP), so it was really just the quarter where they had earnings. Not really interested in them, so didn't dig in any further.

[chassis]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

I don't follow GME at all but looked it up. The had GAAP earnings for the quarter, not just positive EBITDA. A very low tax rate helped them, but they had income before taxes. They still had a loss for the full year (GAAP and Non-GAAP), so it was really just the quarter where they had earnings. Not really interested in them, so didn't dig in any further.

What has been the quarterly cash from operations trend?

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by chassis

What has been the quarterly cash from operations trend?

Like I said, I don’t follow them. Guessing it was negative until this past quarter.

[Chick Webb]

Originally Posted by bagekko

Increasing FDIC coverage to 350-500k won't make much of a difference.

Agreed. But as RickFLM4 pointed out, a pay-as-you-go form of deposit insurance for what today are uninsured balances certainly would reduce the risk of an implosion of our fractional banking system on both a local and larger scale. I'm not sure what the number would be (0.0125, maybe?), but it shouldn't be large. It would reduce access to credit by a bit, and there is always the risk of the banks figuring out a way to put the cost on "the little guy".

Better than nothing, IMHO. Cuz, whether you believe it or not, we all have an interest in a functioning banking system, even if you think it's not "fair" (whatever that is).

[bagekko]

Sure banks could offer products that insured 10/25/50% of your account but the outrageous fees they would charge for that nobody would go for. Plus you know who would be the most against it, the banks, they want to be able to play with all your money. Yes we would all love a responsible fail proof banks, but regulation to force them to be that way is never going to happen. Even after 2008 the regulations that were put in place were not good enough, yet even those not strict rules were reversed. I have worked for enough financial institutions over the last 20+ years to know what their constant motives are and how they are always looking for ways around regulations to do whatever they want with our money.

There is too much demand for credit, tightening the rules on banks would have consumers enraged at the costs. Ideally banks shouldn't be able to take risks that could result in failure, just like our govt should be allowed to be $125T+ in debt.

My grandfather used to bury money in the backyard, a habit his son my uncle also practiced, sure they might of been a little over the top, but these days the masses are a little to trusting of financial institutions.

Originally Posted by Chick Webb

Agreed. But as RickFLM4 pointed out, a pay-as-you-go form of deposit insurance for what today are uninsured balances certainly would reduce the risk of an implosion of our fractional banking system on both a local and larger scale. I'm not sure what the number would be (0.0125, maybe?), but it shouldn't be large. It would reduce access to credit by a bit, and there is always the risk of the banks figuring out a way to put the cost on "the little guy".

Better than nothing, IMHO. Cuz, whether you believe it or not, we all have an interest in a functioning banking system, even if you think it's not "fair" (whatever that is).

[TboneS54]

Originally Posted by bagekko

, but these days the masses are a little to trusting of all governmental/medical/financial institutions.

FIFY

[NickyC]

Janet “doesn’t expect a new financial crisis in our lifetimes” Yellen is convening an emergency “financial stability” meeting today.

[chassis]

Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY

essentially to truly determine profits and health you have to read the full earnings report and determine health.

EBITA is another great bullshit term used to metric a company

What financial measures do you prefer?

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

Originally Posted by chassis

What financial measures do you prefer?

div yield

lol and a product that will never die, cigs, oil, drugs

[bagekko]

Back when she was brought out of the cobwebs I saw it as a good thing to help guide the US out of the COVID recession but have been sorely disappointed. I don't know how we get to a stable market in 2023.

Originally Posted by NickyC

Janet “doesn’t expect a new financial crisis in our lifetimes” Yellen is convening an emergency “financial stability” meeting today.

[bagekko]

plus guns, tools, and ICE cars LOL

Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY

div yield

lol and a product that will never die, cigs, oil, drugs

[chassis]

Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY

div yield

Does the preference for dividend yield mean you are in the decumulation phase of investing?

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

Originally Posted by chassis

Does the preference for dividend yield mean you are in the decumulation phase of investing?

idk what that means?

[chassis]

Originally Posted by G35POPPEDMYCHERRY

idk what that means?

Are you in the decumulation phase of investing?

[G35POPPEDMYCHERRY]

Originally Posted by chassis

Are you in the decumulation phase of investing?

Thanks man I forgot how to read on the other post… I still have no idea what that means. I honestly am in phase. It’s pretty simple that I’m earning dividends and re injecting

[antzcrashing]

Tesla up 50% Year to Date (checks notes, its April 19).

“Tesla sucks they can’t compete”
“Elon sucks he is a has-been”
“With distracted Elon they can’t succeed”

Wrong.

[Tyga11]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

Tesla up 50% Year to Date (checks notes, its April 19).

“Tesla sucks they can’t compete”
“Elon sucks he is a has-been”
“With distracted Elon they can’t succeed”

Wrong.

Looks like net income declined significantly. They also appear to have a lot less excess inventory than ever before.

Do you follow Gary Black on Twitter?

[antzcrashing]

Tesla has 18% automobile margins Excluding federal and state incentives!

On electric cars with 100kW batteries.

Insane.

[2008M36MT]

Originally Posted by antzcrashing

Tesla up 50% Year to Date (checks notes, its April 19).

“Tesla sucks they can’t compete”
“Elon sucks he is a has-been”
“With distracted Elon they can’t succeed”

Wrong.

Remind me again, where is TSLA YTD relative to where it was a year ago? How about the ER TSLA just released? How about the vehicle price cuts? How about answering the questions that were posed to you last year about increasing competition and TSLA's relatively stale product offering? Great analysis though, I am going to go buy some TSLA stock on that basis. Not.

https://www.reuters.com/business/aut...ts-2023-04-22/

You must be in the Cathie Wood school of stock analysis:
https://www.tipranks.com/news/cathie...h-2000-by-2027