GTMike

I have cut short a couple 1st time meets. 1) one-time the gent was the actual person depicted (cleverly) in the profile but was egregiously far off in terms of height and weight. So upfront we agreed on a significantly reduced rate (for the time to show up) and it was clear that at that point he could immediately leave. He wasn't "a bad guy" beyond that initial deception and he wanted to do perform (even at a reduced rate) but I said no. But we did hang out watching sports for a bit chatting. 2) Another time I had a gent who after brief appropriate small talk couldn't help himself talking about people he met through parties and work and he was naming names. I live in LA and he was name dropping known gay celebs and it wasn't scandalous like outing or saying bad stuff about them and honestly they probably wouldn't have cared, but he was gossipy. I quickly feigned an illness and was fair for travel and limited time spent but got him out.

If it's a 1st time meet and was tentatively scheduled to perhaps exceed an hour I will typically offer a portion after 15 to 20 mins (just to instill confidence of no funny business) and almost always the gent says thanks for being considerate and defers till the end. I've never paid had a gent request full payment upfront though one or two have hinted they at least wanted to see evidence of it but that's rare.

Somewhat dismissive and pretty difficult regarding communicating/follow-up so unfortunately no longer a fan.

Do you mean specifically the flirt4free and chaturbate or are you also referring to potentially meeting up with onlyfans/twitter gents as well? If so I like you am experimenting and potentially meeting up with an OnlyFans/Twitter gent. (Not to film or anything like that) Tentatively scheduled and hasn't happened yet (so who knows) but seems promising thus far and hopefully works out.

I agree Here is the original Joint Statement from the US Treasury itself - https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1337 My point being that Treasury Department, President, Head of FDIC and Head of Federal Reserve had a coordinated response to the crisis in an attempt to help restore calm and confidence specifically by saying "all Depositors" in SVB and Signature Banks will be made whole. Specifically the Treasury Department's joint statement on a Sunday (March 12th), notes, "...Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of SVB in a manner that fully protects all depositors ..... No losses associated with the resolution of SVB will be borne by the taxpayer ...Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders would not be specifically protected by these actions...) So yes i agree that it was not an explicit statement of "backstopping" potential losses but it was not an accident the Fed took actions as you noted, the FDIC took actions as noted, and yet with unknown "tbd" potential losses the Treasury Department was apart of an official statement saying all Depositors will be made whole knowing that it takes time to sell off assets, assess and collect fees/premiums from member banks, all while depositors would be withdrawing.

Thinking about it I guess it all makes sense! In January he's "Levi", a 24 year old straight guy with low balls hanging out in Texas. Moves to LA in March and suddenly is "Chad", 22 and bi with a bright future! Hahaha

Ahhh haha yes definitely agree!!!

Have you reserached QLAC's? - Qualified Longevity Annuity Contracts. It is a way to creatively help reduce the amount of the 401k/IRA (not Roth), that is used to calculate the annual RMD's. This article from a couple years ago explains them. - https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/qlac-qualified-longevity-annuity-contract/ I believe the amount was increased in CY 2023 from the maximum of $135,000 or 25% of the tax deferred amount to $200,000 or 25% that you can withdraw from the account when purchasing Annuity Contracts that you can use to help with financial planning and flexibility in your 70's to basically around 85. Basically you can withdraw up to the maximun allowed per year out of the account tax free if it is used to purchase specific types of annuity contracts. Then you can time/optimize when the annuity contracts start paying you and continue deferring paying the tax until receiving that income.

Prior thread -

Also has a RMasseur profile as well under same name. Haven't met but I'm gonna go out on a very large sturdy limb that if you also check "DavidKnight" profile on RMasseur as well that they're part of traveling pack and person who shows up might resemble one of these gents (which in some cases is fine with some folks including myself), but I doubt it's them. (Just my 2 cents based on prior knowledge and experience with a wolf pack participant and organizer). I'll take the abuse of stating unsubstantiated opinions but again, "sturdy limb", haha

All very interesting and potentially different based on where one lives and what typical policies are for insurance. For example I don't know if this applies to all of California but i live in Los Angeles. A typical Home Insurance Policy your home destroyed by a common variety fire. The $ amount of the insurance proceeds (at least in my case) has little to do with the current "projected market value" but based and priced on the current projected "replacement value" of what it would cost to rebuild a similar sized and construction quality of a house. Again (just speaking from experiences), the major insurance carriers have projected costs of construction that they use to estimate by zip code or some metric what it costs to rebuild and the brokers literally advise me against paying more in premiums as customer's reflexively tend to "overinsure" thinking they need an amount equal to it's market value. But also being in LA we also are advised to get supplemental insurance for Earthquakes. As if there is an earthquake and gas pipes blow and that causes a fire that's falls under a different policy. I can't remember specifically but i think if home is destroyed by flood then SOL.

I don't think you have that correct in that there was indeed an affirmation of extending a federal backstop to SVB's depositors above the insured limit. The actions this past Sunday was actually a coordinated response between Biden, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the Head of the FDIC, and J. Powell of the Federal Reserve. For reference check out this article for example - https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/03/12/politics/janet-yellen-bailout-silicon-valley-bank-cnntv/index.html Also it is a fluid situation and despite SVB and Signature Bank being under FDIC control the private banking market is still evaluating deals to purchase parts of the bank or different parts of the loan portfolio's etc.. potentially generating liquidity in order to satsify liabilities. This Government response was more akin to a quick stopgap measure to stop a domino spill over effect into the industry and to instill calm in the markets and avoid greater panic withdrawals in the system but (at least thus far) is not a taxpayer government bail-out despite guaranteeing the bank's liquidity problem with depositors.

Based on comments it seems that you are in Canada and I therefore assume Canadian (Smiley face), but please know most American's aren't aware of how things work here. Just FYI the "FDIC" which does stand for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation actually is an independent agency of the US Federal Government. It was created in the early 1930's when thousands of banks failed after our stock market crash and US Depression. In the ordinary course the Company doesn't receive money from the US Congress budget appropriations and is not money from taxpayers. It generates income from premiums and fees that banks and savings associations pay into the system for deposit insurance converage for the banking system. So outside commentary now saying that fees, premiums etc. are going to be levied is sorta trying to create a false impression that it's out of the ordinary in order to satsify depositor liabilities. Now the US Treasury Department and The Federal Reserve can step in but i believe what they announced yesterday was that the Treasury department would backstop/guarantee the Depositors account values at these banks and the Federal Reserve would relax some lending requirements and provide favorable loans to banks to ensure liquidity throughout the system. This is all intended to help restore/maintain calm to the overal banking system. And these are backstops to allow time for the FDIC insurance corporation to do it's thing but not a full step of actually using taxpayer dollars to fund the banks liabilities and be a "bail-out". (Some will argue that even by the government using it's power to back-stop or guarantee risk that it still creates a moral hazard for banks to be less risk adverse. Reasonable people can disagree when something does or doesn't cross a line.) So you might ask why is it set up this way? The FDIC is one example whereby "the free market" versus centralized goverment does a regulation dance and ebbs and flows over the years between more or less government regulation and intervention. Our system is set up as the free market banking industry trades off government regulation with a negotiated self-regulation. So as a compromise it's a quasi-free market concept and the banks collectively pay fees and premiums to provide insurance to depositors as a trade off for other regulations and controls etc.. they'd prefer not to abide by. The Banking system wants to generate profits by making investments and increase it's shareholder value while the government has a responsibility to help protect consumers in a fundamental way by insuring theres a safe reliable place to store cash for the overall benefit of a healthy functioning capital market system.

If Biden's most recent comments today were that all the uninsured depsitors would be able to get their funds back in full that's because once the regulators took over and was able to assess the situation there were/would be enough assets in a disposition in order to satisfy the full amounts of Deposits. If there wasn't then the uninsured may not have been able to recover the full amounts. My point was that after a seizure there is a process and in this case that is a different process from the comment I was responding to which stated he did not like "bail-outs". (The inference being that the Company was being rescued at taxpayer expense and would continue operating further with additional goverment supplied taxpayer funds). Which in this case is a different process.

I don't think that SVB and Signature Bank are getting bailouts as you may be thinking. Depositors are getting their Federally Insured amounts up to the max of $250k. These banks are being seized and then having their assets and accounts frozen and evaluated. If they can't be sold during an organized regulated process then remaining assets eventually are distributed to uninsured account holders at a pro-rata discounted amount. Executives at these banks typically get fired and recent large compensation to employees can in some cases be recovered. Signature apparently was heavily into Crypto based depositor exposure among other risky and real estate related type businesses. Regarding your comment about highly educated and compensated people not being aware of insurance limits you are correct. Moderator's note: politics redacted.

Does anyone know if he has a R_Masseur profile?

Welcome to the zaniness of this profile hahaha!

I do use it quite a bit and would agree with that and is consistent with the directions and recommended usage.

I have personal experience with that product and if you'd like lemme know and I can PM you.

And different number.

After being booted from the Royal Family gotta get creative supplementing income!! Hahaha

He could be your neighbor if you lived in Santa Barbara. That's Prince Harry (well no longer officially "Prince") and he's married with 2 kids. Hahaha

Bumping this https://rentmasseur.com/Scottchas/

Doesn't list travel schedule on profile but no longer in LA from yesterday and lists as being in San Diego now. Only takes same day appointments.

I should have been clearer. Taken as a whole with a profile that seems "TGTBT" like that and based on looking at those profiles plus getting an auto-generated reply to go to text immediately and stating only taking same day appointments that is why I made the comment. Also should be clearer about the aspect of what the TGTBT comment meant. I get being concerned about having discussions over RM vis a vis problems potentially with LE, but same could be true in order to have no record of conversation over site when making arrangements to meet. Then later if reports are made that the Pic's aren't of the person there's nothing to substantiate and the Pic's can be used longer and more effectively.