3 ms·
This is just completely naive and wrong. The last two bank collapses happened because they held too much long duration assets and held them on the books at cost
by jcheidieh 4y ago
This is just completely naive and wrong. The last two bank collapses happened because they held too much long duration assets and held them on the books at cost. Where would that show up here? That’s right, nowhere.
At the very least do some domain research and look up things like Texas ratio.
- simonebrunozzi 4y agoYou could have provided a link to an explanation to what the Texas ratio is [0], or simply explained that: The Texas ratio takes the amount of a bank's non-performing assets and divides this number by the sum of the bank's tangible common equity and its loan loss reserves. A ratio of more than 100 (or 1:1) indicates that non-performing assets are greater than the resources the bank may need to cover potential losses on those assets. I agree the website looks very naive, but not necessarily naive on purpose. [0]: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/texas-ratio.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/texas-ratio.asp
- janmo 4y agoThe ranking is mainly based on stock price action and price-to-book ratio. The collapses that occurred were a combination of factors. The most important were the massive withdrawals of capital these highly specialised banks faced when their crypto and startup customers ran out of money.