Jump to content

Brew

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3393
  • Joined

Posts posted by Brew

  1. 12 hours ago, tokamak said:

    I could use a 3B or SS that’s worth a damn. 

    Haven’t had a chance to look at your team, but I have an extra 3B if you’re interested and want to throw something reasonable out. It’s a couple more weeks before I can really start paying attention.

  2. 6 hours ago, Mother mopar said:
    15 hours ago, BabaYaga said:
    I've run both.  Nitto RG's are better in soupy/muddier ground that the BFG's that will coat up quickly.  Both are equally adept in loose/rocky terrain.  When it would rain at the ranch and my BFGs were coated, when I hit the main highway it was like a hailstorm under the truck as the tires were throwing mud for miles.  Both have the reinforced sidewall that is so important.  
    For my tundra I went with Coopers this time.  Got a flat with the stock Michelin AT2s and had to limp to Early with the spare.  Went with the AT3s and so far I really like them.  10-ply, E rated tire so the thorns/rocks should be less of a problem.  Ran then in the snow/ice we had and they did equally well.  

    Huge fan of the Cooper AT3s, run them on my 07 cummins and love them.

    This. The three sets of KO2’s I ran were garbage. The wear pattern was uneven on them and they were useless on wet roads. Buddy that runs a tire shop convinced me to switch to Copper’s 3-4 vehicles ago and I have never looked back.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 1
  3. On 3/13/2023 at 10:30 PM, billfromlaketravis said:

    Correct. Women love Panera. My wife has the coffee subscription, and their app provides free delivery, so unfortunately I’ve had quite a few meals from there. 
     

    Decent menu items: 

    Medium roast coffee 

    Iced coffee

    Caffeinated lemonades are an interesting mixer for the pool

    Green Goddess Salad, name aside, is pretty darned solid. You could put that dressing on Lincoln Riley’s brisket and it would taste good. 

    Flat bread pizzas

    Smoked chicken sandwich 

    Everything bagel is above average for a chain. I’d say it’s comparable to Einstein’s.

     

    I think women like it because it’s so predictable and consistent. They can’t order anything that’s going to be extremely good or extremely poor. It’s perfect for people that can’t make up their minds, women. 

     

    Green Goddess Salad and the Frontega Chicken sandwich (black pepper focaccia is one of the best quick service bread options out there) are both worth eating.   Avocado/egg white breakfast sandwich is also an above average breakfast option. Some of their soups are also pretty good. Best thing about them is it is easy, they are consistent, and they have reasonably healthy options that are good.

  4. We own a couple of companies that do it, but we’re not in Texas. There are plenty of small/mid size operations around that do really good work, they just don’t have the ability to scale up and aren’t typically out promoting because they have more work than they want at their sizes.

    We are working with ours on being able to replicate services with other individuals handling accounts so they can scale up as well as acquire others.

  5. 2 hours ago, Skipper said:

    Most likely nothing.  Depositors are just fleeing smaller/regional banks in droves.  

    Our client base has seen no deposit loss as a result. I think people are fleeing the regionals (to your point) to move up to the mega banks, but the smaller sub $1B community banks seem fine. 

    • Like 1
  6. 54 minutes ago, troph said:

    We just moved in and are enjoying our appliances.
     

    Bosch 800 dishwasher is money. 
     

    Sub zero fridge is great. Stand alone ice maker is surprisingly nice. We wanted sonic ice and there was a mix up it’s bigger ice pieces but super fresh (and better for cocktails and scotch). Don’t over look the ice maker.

    wolf induction range is surprisingly awesome. I don’t miss gas at all. I may prefer induction actually. 
     

    we have wolf ovens, we haven’t used enough to know but no complaints.

    wine storage is wolf. It does well. 100 bottles max, a little tight with about 60 bottles and dwindling stored.

    second fridge and microwave are Samsung. Meh.  Don’t really care.

     

    I’m keeping the ice maker i ordered even if we don’t do anything with the kitchen. Our stand alone is getting old and needs to be replaced so we ordered a sonic ice version to replace it with. The stand alone ice maker comes in extremely handy.

  7. 49 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:
    1 hour ago, Brew said:
    I have a wolf range and a sub zero fridge/freezer sitting in a warehouse I’ll cut you a deal on. Delays set back kitchen renovations and I’m just not that interested in starting it now, but I have the appliances already. Renovations and additions have been shitty for the last 18 months and I’ve lost interest in another 3 month project that turns into 6.

    What model/size is the Sub Zero?

    Have to go back and check, ordered them 18+ months ago. Pretty sure the fridge is the cl4850sd/s and the range is one of the 48” or 60” dual fuels with a Wolf hood.

  8. I have a wolf range and a sub zero fridge/freezer sitting in a warehouse I’ll cut you a deal on. Delays set back kitchen renovations and I’m just not that interested in starting it now, but I have the appliances already. Renovations and additions have been shitty for the last 18 months and I’ve lost interest in another 3 month project that turns into 6.

    • Like 1
  9. 16 minutes ago, Auto Driller said:

    I worked in a startup with a banker friend from college. One time I described to him how I (engineer) was taught that it’s extremely important to acknowledge when you don’t know something because there’s usually going to be someone in the room who knows the subject better than you do. He said that in the financial world that’s not allowed. You have to have “a view” on every subject, whether you actually know anything or not.

    Sounds like they would make excellent social media users.

  10. 39 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

    like i said above we obviously have differing opinions.  thanks for your input and insight.

    Just to be clear, I’m not arguing to take the limits off either. I just think the risk to taking the limits off is more related to depositor side problems it creates not bank side. It’s basically the guy on the depositors shoulder making them pay attention to things and spread their individual risk. Without it, you could see mass consolidation in the banking world because deposit side risk goes away. Inevitably that probably creates the risk you bring up as well. I just think the bank is always going to be limited by the risk to the bank.

    Ultimately, the system functions now with very limited depositor risk albeit not zero. Most of this will quiet down if the feds return money to investors showing they did not come out of pocket on anything.

  11. 11 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

     

    yes, they will chase yields.  you understand the premise but you don't agree.  

     

     

    that's the thing though isn't it.  right now they have a motivation to protect that money.  that motivation changes if there's an explicit guarantee on all depositors' cash.

     

    They are free to chase the yields now within the constraints of regulations, which have zero to do with FDIC insurance limits per deposit. 

    Again, the motivation to protect the money comes from not killing the golden goose (the bank) not depositor risk of loss in a bank failure in my opinion. They work to protect the bank and maximize the bank’s return, taking off the FDIC limit doesn’t change that equation.

    I grew up in the bank side of our firm and still deal with banks/bankers regularly as we still work with 60-80 banks. We deal primarily with non publicly traded banks just for the record, so I view banks more from the community bank size (up to $1B) more than the publicly traded side for perspective.

  12. 1 minute ago, bernorange said:

    100% of deposits would have been parked at the Fed.  Depositors wouldn't lose anything unless the Fed failed.

    The bank deposits were, but the depositors were not. They were still subject to bank risk and the interest rate float if you scan the app and response. If you read further through the Fed’s response, they had a number of issues with the structure.

    I may be completely off base here. It wouldn’t be the first time, but with the overlayed regulations in place the guardrails are there already otherwise you would see depositor loss on bank failures.

  13. 2 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    The Fed was really scared about the implications of this when they considered The Narrow Bank's application for a Fed Master Account.

    In a very quick look at it, the Federal Reserve was concerned with a number of issues with the structure that TNB was applying for while also not being an FDIC insured bank. Those deposits would not have been insured at the depositor level.

  14. Walk me through what the bank does differently if deposits are 100% guaranteed? You keep saying it, but what does it look like in practice? Bank A has deposits of $500M, makes loans using those deposits, holds treasuries and other ST investments to make some money on funds not loaned, etc. If that $500M becomes fully guaranteed what is the bank doing differently with those deposits? Riskier loans, riskier investments than treasuries, what? The bank is still exposed to risk of loss, regulatory requirements on capital, funds being moved ant any given time, etc. Do you think they all start rolling the dice and increasing the risk of default to the bank? I don’t see it. I can see where it pushes interest rates higher potentially (which could lead to more risk in the loan portfolio by extension) and causes bank consolidation which may not be positives, but this wholesale shift that covered deposits would creat doesn’t make sense. 
     

    Deposits are effectively covered now as has been stated numerous times. The timing of access has not been.

  15. 41 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

    banks work to foster relationships with their customers.  there's a trust that if you give me your money i'll take care of it, grow it, and when you need it it'll be here.  if there's an explicit guarantee that money will be there no matter what it's going to remove a major constraint on risk that regulation won't be able to constrict.  we already have a hard enough time regulating risk where there's still intrinsic risk for the bankers.  an explicit 100% guarantee on all deposits would be a bad bad idea.  

     

    pretty much anyone at any bank selling any type of product needs a license.  you have national licenses and state licenses depending on where you are.  as an analyst you don't need a license but it's rare for anyone who sees themselves in a long term career not obtaining their licenses.  

    Can you walk into a bank where you are and buy insurance products without having to go through their wealth management / private banking people? You can’t where I am. There is a bank side (deposits/loans) and a wealth management side (products/investments) and with larger banks a private client side that bridges the gap.

  16. 6 hours ago, Brew said:

    I’m all ears on an explanation of how your first point works, because so far no one else that has made that claim can support it with any sort of explanation. The FDIC limit provides confidence to retail customers which in turn curbs bank runs on bad information. Bank runs are probably one of the lowest volume reasons that banks fail. I can name 4 bank clients that have failed in the last 5 years, runs on deposits weren’t the issues with any of them. I can’t come up with anything a bank does at a higher risk level with depositors balances covered because they still put the bank at risk in any scenario you throw out. What it does is artificially deflate interest rates on bank accounts and probably artificially prop up the sheer number of chartered banks there are. Those both may be positives in reality. I’m also not arguing to perpetually cover deposits, but again in almost every scenario depositors end up whole. The timing is the anomaly here, not the fact depositors get their money back.

    On your second point, item number one on their list then should be caps of no more than FDIC covered deposits. How many bankers do you know that operate that way? Also, where do you live that bankers require licensing? If they aren’t selling investment products or in mortgage lending, I don’t know of any licensing needed.

    Edited to say 4 failed bank clients in the last 11 years. Turning into my parents where everything seems like it happened yesterday. There were a few others in the front/middle of the 2008/2009 collapse.

    • Like 2
  17. 1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

     in a situation where deposits are 100% covered by let's say the FDIC banks will swing for home run investments.  they're going to take on risk as you've never seen because there are no consequences of failure. 

    yes.  if they're doing their job the way they're supposed to, absolutely.  all those licensing tests hammer home the moral duty of responsible stewardship. 

    I’m all ears on an explanation of how your first point works, because so far no one else that has made that claim can support it with any sort of explanation. The FDIC limit provides confidence to retail customers which in turn curbs bank runs on bad information. Bank runs are probably one of the lowest volume reasons that banks fail. I can name 4 bank clients that have failed in the last 5 years, runs on deposits weren’t the issues with any of them. I can’t come up with anything a bank does at a higher risk level with depositors balances covered because they still put the bank at risk in any scenario you throw out. What it does is artificially deflate interest rates on bank accounts and probably artificially prop up the sheer number of chartered banks there are. Those both may be positives in reality. I’m also not arguing to perpetually cover deposits, but again in almost every scenario depositors end up whole. The timing is the anomaly here, not the fact depositors get their money back.

    On your second point, item number one on their list then should be caps of no more than FDIC covered deposits. How many bankers do you know that operate that way? Also, where do you live that bankers require licensing? If they aren’t selling investment products or in mortgage lending, I don’t know of any licensing needed.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  18. 1 hour ago, gsoda3 said:

     

     

    it removes the moral incentive to guard depositors' money.  at that point if the bank goes bankrupt what's the consequence for those in charge?  nothing really, just go to another bank.  

    Do you think bankers currently operate under the moral incentive to guard depositor’s money? How many bankers will gladly take your deposits in excess of $250k? One of the local banks here is advertising 4.75% on up to $10M in deposits. Isn’t that by definition not operating with the incentive to guard your deposit risk? They should cap you at $250k and send you elsewhere.

    Again, I can’t get my head around it. This was an investment risk failure plain and simple. The bank held large deposits with no offsetting loans for front end capitalized entities and made longer terms bets to generate income on assets classes they shouldn’t have. They should have told the depositors to lock the money up elsewhere until it was going to be needed based on their cash burn rates, but why turn away good money even if we cannot lend it. Banks have to have deposits to make loans to make money. This one had the deposits, but not the loans and decided to play stupid games and won stupid prizes.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  19. 26 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

    If every bank knows their deposits are fully insured, don’t lending underwriting standards go down? Aren’t banks given green light to do whatever they want with customer deposits?
     

    It’s been a long weekend so I could be completely missing the obvious here, but why would fully insured deposits impact loan underwriting standards? I can’t think of anything they do that would be dictated by the FDIC coverage outside of  it giving them more leverage for deposit concentrations. Right now the average person with excess cash knows to spread it around in banks. That goes away with guaranteed deposit coverage which may actually drive interest rates on deposits up as it would be more competitive and it is artificially held down with the FDIC coverag. I guess that could lead to lowering underwriting standards as they have to take on riskier loans at higher rates to make the spread.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  20. 1 minute ago, SL Xpress said:

    I don't see it as problematic as you do. If the scenario doesn't fit making depositors whole, don't make them whole. That wasn't the case here. Collecting premiums to insure all deposits in the entire banking system doesn't sound like a good policy to me. 

    I’m having a hard time coming up with a scenario where it doesn’t make sense for depositors to be made whole. I also can’t think of a scenario where they weren’t eventually made whole although I’m sure they exist. The catch here is the timing and guarantee and the class of assets that have to be dealt with.

    Generally the FDIC has a buyer in place quickly so timing isn’t usually an issue although I can think of a couple of local banks the regulators operated for quite a while after taking over.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  21. 36 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

    I hate to say it but if it looks like a bailout, it doesn't matter whether it's "really" a bailout. They're going to call it the Big Tech Bailout.

    Is it a bailout if there is no real bailout? Again, at the moment we’re talking about timing differences on access to money unless the disposition of the bank assets goes terribly wrong.

    Idiots are going to call it whatever they want, because they are idiots and looking for clicks on social media. I hate social media, everyone’s inherent need to share their opinions and spew garbage slowly (or maybe not so slowly any more) pushes us closer and closer to the cliff’s edge.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...