Jump to content


Full Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Porterhouse

  1. Yes. Kyrie probably has 5-6 prime seasons of ball. LBJ is done. KD and Steph are 4 years older than Kyrie, who literally turned 31 on Thursday. That you’d take LBJ over Kyrie right now is asinine. You’re a fucking moron. Yes, clearly you’d be better on the Mavs than Kyrie.
  2. His treatment of CW is almost as retarded as GoLL’s post. Yeah let’s play Powell over CW. Idiotic. He should be fired for that alone.
  3. Luka needs a great coach. Carlisle was a hard ass and the antithesis of a player’s coach. Kidd is a flat out moron. His coaching is destroying Luka’s love for the game and making his attitude and defense very bad. While THAT wouldn’t happen with Dirk, you need to fix the root cause. You don’t move Luka. Luka isn’t Dirk. He’s immeasurably better. That was probably the most retarded Mavs post I’ve ever read, more retarded than my Kyrie love.
  4. Yeah, now I would take him over Ja. Kyrie isn’t the problem. Kidd and then Luka are the problem. Any criticism levied at me about taking him over LBJ, Steph or KD fails to take into consideration age. Those three are all Top 20 players of all time with LBJ Top 2 and the latter two borderline Top 10 guys. But I’m not choosing from them in the 2023 Draft. Doesn’t matter. Kyrie is gone this summer and it’s Kidd’s fault, who is probably gone as well.
  5. I would love to know the mindset of a Haynesville operator, with high service costs and an extended period of low price.
  6. The last page has way too much Hermanator. That cunt needs to start a Fan thread. Bascik is a really good dude who isn’t racist in the slightest. He made an incredibly stupid remark, and he has muppet voice.
  7. Yes, and rightfully so. There isn’t even a plan for the fantastical home run hire. Terry will be given a 4-yr+ deal. I’m surprised we’re still having the discussion.
  8. So like $85/$90 or TI? Yeah, that’s not “scrapping” a $100 forecast. That’s reducing it by 15%.
  9. a) non-bank lenders are appreciably more expensive and therefore not a choice. b) depositors and banks alike most certainly cared where deposits were held. Whoever told you that has no idea what they’re talking about.
  10. They don’t have a choice and it doesn’t matter 100% of the time.
  11. Idiotic post is idiotic but consider the author. Again, most loans attained require you to hold all deposits related to the entity receiving the loan at that bank. This is standard. If you don’t like it, you don’t have to take the loan. If you go down the street, the next bank will require the same. And if that’s considered “riskier” for the Borrower, please point to the banks that’ve failed aside from SVB and SB. I’ll hang up and listen with baited fucking breath
  12. It won’t. We will gradually get back to $80 and then break out, probably in summer, in a big way.
  13. Don’t even acknowledge him starting by not attending the call tomorrow.
  14. Guaranteeing deposits does nothing to change bank behavior. It does everything to change depositor behavior. It’s insane how stupid whatever they were transacting and their inability to properly address it through their risk management procedures. Like mind-numbingly Banking 101 shit. Money is extremely fungible but their deposits took off with money pouring into tech. While funny, linking the Fed as the arsonist would be impossible to do. Yes. And this is precisely WHY we needed the action we got one week ago, @Dahobbs, because without it it’d have been disastrous. I can’t see any parallels at all. Both unique situations. PS was caught up in Texas O&G, CRE and S&L scandal, and was making huge asinine loans. SVB was TOTALLY different and a much much better bank. Samsonite Bank. You were way off. It doesn’t. Dumb. King of dumbass populist rep. If you know banking regulators this is 100% wrong.
  15. It won’t happen, but he’s been the best coach in college hoops for 30 years. Pitino’s issue is like Larry Brown’s issue, and also that he bangs rando South Louisville moms in restaurants.
  16. Ha, yeah, I didn’t see that original post so don’t know the context but in no way will we be fucked financially.
  17. I’ve changed my tune on him. What he’s accomplished with this team is a really solid coaching job. We aren’t THAT good, and he held it together and produced some solid wins. If we make Sweet 16, I’m on board with giving him a relatively short term deal (can we get him on a 3-yr deal?). I like him, but he will have his work cut out for him next year with so much leaving.
  18. That’s because you’re a fucking idiot.
  19. Bud, it was greed: In 2020 and 2021 when rates were “zero”, the excess cash in banks were kept (deposited) at the Fed and were only earning .15% yield. Banks were paying depositors, not much, but it was about .20% to .30% , so with the cost of FDIC insurance, about 5 or 6 bp, the “all in cost” of interest bearing deposits was ..25% to .35%, which created a NEGATIVE spread for banks on all its excess cash. Banks had two choices: Suffer through the negative spread until rates normalized. Naturally, no one knew how to plan this timing; or Invest the excess cash in longer term securities, i.e. MBS (mortgage backs) or other bonds , i.e. UST. Many banks could not stand the loss of profitability by keeping the funds at the Fed at .15%, so they bought longer term securities, such as: · MBS. Expected average life of 5 to 6 years, yield avg. of about 2.25% to 2.5%. (remember the mortgages in those days were 2.75% to 3%); · UST, 5yr to 6 yr maturity. Yielding probably 1.2%; These investments of excess cash provide a positive (modest) POSITIVE margin or profit. · Then March 2022 comes around and rates skyrocketed, and this was the impact to the above securities: · The average life of their MBS investments moved from 5 or 6 years to 8 to 9 years. No refis and borrowers with low mortgage rates would not sell their home. The market value of those securities plummeted as much a 30% to 40%, creating huge unrealized losses. · While the maturity shrank 1 year, the market value on the USTs plummeted, as much as 20% depending on the maturity. So, these banks now find themselves with low yielding bonds, relative to the rate the Fed pays (4.60%) and are now having to pay premium rates for interest bearing deposits. · Net net, the unrealized losses in some cases (Silicon and others) amounted to as much as 50% to 60% of their capital account; therefore, it was difficult to justify, economically or accounting, selling the bonds and realizing the losses. Yet, SBV HAD to, whereas most other banks with these large securities portfolios won’t face this same problem as they’re not weighted in VC / tech.
  20. I mean he’s spouting nonsense all over the place and has been for days. Its eye-opening. To answer his question, the rate increases are by and large fantastic for banks. It’s not “breaking the banks”. It broke a bank that was managed very very stupidly. The other banks are enjoying massive expansion in their Net Interest Margins.
  21. False. Greed drove them here because they couldn’t stand to not earn something on their multitude of deposits in a zero interest rate environment for some period of time. I agree with the bulk of your post, particularly the conservatism of their loan portfolio. But the bolded part is just wrong and they’re not the only ones that have engaged in that practice.
  • Create New...