Welcome to the PMBug forums - a watering hole for folks interested in gold, silver, precious metals, sound money, investing, market and economic news, central bank monetary policies, politics and more.
Why not register an account and join the discussions? When you register an account and log in, you may enjoy additional benefits including no Google ads, market data/charts, access to trade/barter with the community and much more. Registering an account is free - you have nothing to lose!
I'd take it at face-value except for the source.The Telegraph
If America’s banks crash, don’t count on a bailout
The Federal Reserve will come to the rescue. One of the Wall Street giants will step in at the last minute. And if necessary, the money will be printed to protect deposits.
As the markets grow more nervous over America’s regional banks they can at least reassure themselves on one point: that the US government will bail them out if it has to – as it always has in the past.
Don’t be too sure. With Donald Trump at war with the Fed and the government shut down, we can hardly take that for granted – and that is a terrifying prospect for investors.
It was not hard to work out why global stock markets were falling on Friday. There is growing nervousness about the exposure of many of the regional banks in the US to loans that could soon turn sour.
More:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...unt-on-a-bailout/ar-AA1OKTcR?ocid=socialshare
I'm not an expert; but it appears to me, many credit-unions are tied to banks, regional or large, to aid with their functions.How about credit unions?
Yes, But every time gold goes up, which is basically daily, a cold, damp chill runs down my spine.I'm not an expert; but it appears to me, many credit-unions are tied to banks, regional or large, to aid with their functions.
Right now I trust nothing. My own banking is done at a top-rated CU (had a web link to a rating service, seems not political) but I don't trust it to survive a crash.
Gold is money. All else is debt.
How about credit unions?
...
Taken together, the first study (published two months ago) shows that large US banks have weaker economic capital compared with 2007, and the second study shows that economic capital better predicts bank failures than the classic capital ratio used in the Fed’s stress tests. The takeaway from these studies is very simple: large banks are now more likely to fail than before the GFC. This effectively ends the argument of those who still believe that large banks are better prepared for a crisis than they were in 2007.
Bottom line
Believe it or not, there are more major issues on the larger bank balance sheets as compared to smaller banks, which we have covered in past articles. Moreover, consider that there was one major issue which caused the GFC back in 2008, whereas today, we currently have many more large issues on bank balance sheets. These risk factors include major issues in commercial real estate, rising risks in consumer debt (approaching 2007 levels), underwater long-term securities, over-the-counter derivatives, high-risk shadow banking (the lending for which has exploded), and elevated default risk in commercial and industrial (C&I) lending. So, in our opinion, the current banking environment presents even greater risks than what we have seen during the 2008 GFC.
...
I would put this into the "Clickbait" file.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?