Luv2play

Again I respectfully disagree. Yellen instructed the FDIC over the weekend to extend funds beyond the $250k limit but from their own account. In the CNN article you cited above she expressly said the government was not going to bail out the bank with government money as they had done in 2008. The FDIC funds are raised by the banking industry itself. The article used the words "extend a federal backstop" but those were CNN's words to characterize the actions of the government and as such were somewhat misleading as to who was doing what. The Treasury never uttered the words that they were backstopping the bank with goverment guarantees of money.

I wasn't thinking of natural disasters when a house burns down. I was just thinking of the garden variety isolated incident of a house fire, which is all I personally have ever seen in my area of Canada in the east. When whole towns are consumed by fire as in British Columbia and Alberta in the last several years, different approaches are taken by governments to help the victims. Compensation over and above private insurance are often resorted to by governments

Your analogy of insurance on a house not covering the whole amount of a loss of $500,000 isn't really apt here because in a case like that the insurance company will not even fully cover your insured loss of $250,000. They will say you underinsured your house and therefore must assume a part of the loss within the $250,000 limit. This is because by understating the value of your house you avoided paying the full premiums that would have applied had the full value been insured. That is also why when house values increase insurance coverage is adjusted annually to reflect the amount the insurance company is on the hook for if there is a loss.

One thing you said I don't believe to be true is about the Treasury stepping in to backstop the value of deposits at SVB. For that Janet Yellen would have had to confirm that. Which she did not since that would have been tantamount to a taxpayer bailout. What the Fed did do is to make their discount window more accomodating to other banks if they faced liquidity problems in the coming days. That window has a current limit of $25 billion and the Fed loosened this to accomodate potential withdrawals. It is not yet known how much of a shortfall, if any, the assets at SVB will experience compared to liabilities, but if there is one then the FDIC will cover it and levy an extra fee against all banks, thus averting a taxpayer bailout which Biden vetoed. My understanding is that the government made recourse to a provision in the law that allowed FDIC to make whole deposits above the $250,000 limit in cases where the integrity of the overall banking system was at risk. This as I noted above has rarely been resorted to but gave Biden the means to avoid a taxpayer bailout.

I read this morning that here in Canada government and banking officials were working throughout the weekend to asses the situation and take measures to ensure the contagion south of the border was headed off from affecting Canadian businesses. Reminded me of my days in international finance when I had to work overtime on weekends to the same ends. Every decade brings its crises in financial markets and for the people involved at the government level the work is thankless.

That's not what happened over the weekend. The FDIC and Fed tried to have an auction of the failed bank but it didn't work because they were not able to make an assessment in the short time before Monday opening of how much the assets of SVP were worth. Faced with no buyers and the $250,000 limit on insured deposits, many companies were not able to make payroll on Friday. If this had persisted there was a real danger of the problem spreading rapidly throughout the banking sector. So the government stepped in and covered every depositor for all their money held by SVP. They used a provision in law rarely resorted to so that taxpayers were not on the hook. Rather the banking sector overall would be liable for any losses and the fees levied on banks for deposit insurance would cover such losses. This was not restricted to the US, as here in Canada 16 high tech companies who had their money in SVB Cda, a subsidiary, could not make payroll on Friday as well. The good news is that there is no evidence that the banking system was in danger of seizing up as it did in 2008, when banks stopped lending to each other. The bad news is that tech companies are going to find it harder to borrow for expanding their businesses. And that will negatively impact the economy.

That's not what Biden said today. Depositers at SVP are being covered for all of their deposits including those above the insured limit of $250,000.

The shares of a lot of regional banks got hammered today. Halt trading in eleven or so. It looks like more will need to be done to restore confidence in the banks. And I don't think coffee and donuts is going to cut it.

There are other elements to the rescue package but I won't get into them. What I theorize is that the major assets of SVB are its loan portfolio and investments. We already know their investments in Treasuries are under water given the rapid increase in the Fed rates. What we don't know is what state their loan portfolio is in. Most of it is to VC firms we are told. Some of those may be shaky given the rapid decline in the tech sector this last year. The other may be in mortgages and while we are not looking at what happened in 2008, with the rapid increase in mortgage rates in the last year, loans made at 1.5 percent over 15 or 30 years may not look so hot when money costs so much more today.

Just read in NYT that the feds have come up with a package to try to restore calm in the banking world. It will see all deposits at SVB and Signature, another bank based in NY closed today, guaranteed by the FDIC. That amounts to over $300 billion in deposits. If the money is not fully recovered through sale of assets of the two banks, all banks will share in the pain through a levy on the insurance program maintained by the government . So no taxpayer bailout but potentially increased bank fees by all who bank anywhere in the US.

The thought has occured to me every once in a while that since I live alone in a house in a small town, if I suffered an health incident where I lost consciousness, who would find me and how soon. I will look into getting a medic alert even though I might not fit the profile, not having had a heart attack or stroke (yet). My father was in his mid 80's when he had his first heart attack but was able to tell his wife to call 911. I'm only in my mid 70's but still. I used to worry when I had 2 dogs that if something happened to me they would probably eat my face, trying to revive me. Don't laugh. I have heard it happening. But now I am really alone with no pets. I had a college buddy who 20 years ago suffered what happened to Daddy. He was found a day later in his kitchen having suffered a stroke. In his case he lived another 10 years but in a wheelchair.

I just checked and the information I read was that First Republic was sold by Bank of America back in 2009-2010, one year after they acquired it. It is now owned by private investors. Obviously if this is true it is not protected by a bank that is "too big to fail". You might want to check what other things your accountant is telling you.

I was with Washington Mutual for my Florida banking when it failed in 2008. It was a huge bank failure, larger than SVB. I only lost a few dollars as I wasn't parking a lot of money there when I was back in Canada. I kept my plastic issued by them as a souvenir. I remember Canada having a couple of bank failures out west in the '80's when the price of oil collapsed but those banks were small potatoes compared to Canada's largest banks, which have never had any problems and are tightly regulated.

The things I appreciate about this forum are when members are willing to share their experiences in the hobby most of us share in common; that they do so in a civil way when expressing opinions, and that they engage in intelligent conversations. I can do without the drama and when I see things going that way I tend to withdraw. I must admit there was a lot of drama in the politics forum. Just as in real life I suppose.

I would suggest looking at the current offerings on RM and looking at their reviews. I often review the ones I have experiences with in RM. My caveat is that every experience is deeply personal and what satisfies one may not another. We all bring our own preferences to the encounter and these are highly individualistic. In the end if you are serious about hiring in the Montreal market correspond with the ones that interest you.

He now lists as Brandonjohnsons on RM in Montreal. Sorry I can't provide the link. Maybe someone with greater skills can. His ad indicates $400cdn in and $2000 overnight. Still no anal or oral top or bottom. His few reviews are positive. No interest here on my part. There are much better options in Montreal.

I would not consider your statement that "I suggest early evening" is a firm commitment on the part of either party. Unless the provider came back to you at that time to nail down a time, then you had no date set up. It's not surprising that by the next day, he wasn't available. You can't fault him because you were not specific in setting up a time.

That $250 million penthouse would give me the willies. I noticed the interviewer had them too as he couldn't approach any of the windows without squirming. A case of vertigo would be hard to avoid. I had the same reaction when I was in the viewing gallery at the top of the World Trade Centre back in the 1980's. I didn't want to get too close to the windows that went right down to the floor. You think if the window suddenly pops out you would be instantly sucked out.

Marc in Calif has provided a well balanced and informative summary of the situation in Calif. as I understand it to be.

I just read the LA Times editorial of today which states only 17 percent of California as of now is drought free. Therefore I take it the rest, 87 percent is affected by some degree of drought. It also explains that scientists measure drought conditions by several factors including soil conditions, not the dictionary definition, which Unicorn cited. It goes on to explain why laymen are confused by what they are witnessing and what the experts are studying. I listen to what the experts are saying and not what ill informed individuals on social media say.

The level of denial is astounding. One wet season does not alter the overall drought conditions in most of California over the last number of years. If this winter's rain and snow were to repeat next winter then possibly the outlook would brighten. However the prospect of hotter and dryer summers could negate the improvement seen in the last month or so. If you look at just the beginning of January the drought situation in California was dire.

I'll have to check agsin but all I've been reading for some time now is that California has been experiencing drought conditions for some time now. I will have to check how many years. This rainy season has been exceptional in that regard. It's not the only place on earrh that has had heavy precipitation in their rainy season. Pakistan almost drowned this past year during their monsoon season. And scientists are attributing this to climate change.

Measured on the top it would be a nice 8 incher. The pubic bone would prevent penetration any greater than 8 inches.

The CBC in Canada reported on this tonight in their 6 o'clock news program. It mentioned rhe community of Crestline and the 10 feet of snow engulfing homes. It also reported more snow in Northern California is headed their way. On the positive side the snow pack in the mountains will alleviate somewhat the drought conditions this summer but not by much unless the precipitation continues. Let it rain, let it rain, let it rain.

Reminds me of the old song" I'm gonna wash that man right out of my hair".