3 ms·

It's a nitpick but... "Lost" implies they don't know where they went. They do. They were just withdrawn.

by LatteLazy 3y ago

dfxm12 3y ago
"Lost" implies they don't know where they went. No it doesn't.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  Yes, yes it does. The document says ... "Total Deposits Declined Substantially Quarter Over Quarter, but Insured Deposits Increased" Declined makes sense, "lost" doesn't.
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    Declined makes sense, "lost" doesn't. "US banks declined $472B in deposits in the Q1 2023" (fdic.gov) So they turned the money down? No, that doesn't sound right...
    - aezart 3y ago
      "US Bank deposits down $427B in Q1 2023" would make the most sense. I also read "lost" as "lost track of", as in "we received these deposits but then don't know where they went".
tekla 3y ago
Nitpick: a) No it doesn't. Here are mainstream news outlets that uses the word "Lost" in the context of bank deposits decreasing, and we all know what they mean, and no way implies that they don't know where the money went. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/business/economy/first-republic-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/business/economy/first-re... https://fortune.com/2023/04/24/first-republic-bank-loses-billions-deposits-first-quarter-plans-layoffs/ https://fortune.com/2023/04/24/first-republic-bank-loses-bil... b) The report itself doesn't use the word "Lost" once, so its a useless nitpick.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  > we all know what they mean No, the readers of fortune and the NYT business sections do, "we all" do not. > The report itself doesn't use the word "Lost" once, so its a useless nitpick. Actually, it's pretty important, the FDIC avoided the word.
  - tekla 3y ago
    If you're going to refuse to use common definitions and usages for words, even when used within appropriate context, I don't really know what to do with a completely different reality Lets go with dictionary.com https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lost https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lost > no longer possessed or retained: Now lets substitute that into the editorialized title "US banks no longer possessed or retained $472B in deposits in the Q1 2023" Wow, it still makes sense. Lets go to the FDIC now. https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/crisis/chap6.pdf https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/crisis/chap6.pdf > On the other hand, the bank’s franchise value (if any) is lost > For example, some assets might have lost value because asset management > In addition to the fees, loan servicing transfers may impose indirect costs, such as lost information or delays or miscommunications in addressing delinquencies. > A senior tranche is the least risky tranche in a securitization and takes losses only when all the other tranches have lost their full value. It doesn't seem like the FDIC has any issue with using the word "lost" in the context of "numbers went down"
    - Ensorceled 3y ago
      > Now lets substitute that into the editorialized title "US banks no longer possessed or retained $472B in deposits in the Q1 2023" From that same link, let's do the same thing with the other definitions of lost: "US banks can no longer find $472B in deposits in the Q1 2023" "US banks $472B in deposits have gone astray in the Q1 2023" It's not clear without reading the article and, given that the other definitions are FAR more newsworthy, it's an important distinction.

It's a nitpick but... "Lost" implies they don't know where they went. They do. They were just withdrawn.

dfxm12 3y ago

"Lost" implies they don't know where they went. No it doesn't.

Ensorceled 3y ago
Yes, yes it does. The document says ... "Total Deposits Declined Substantially Quarter Over Quarter, but Insured Deposits Increased" Declined makes sense, "lost" doesn't.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  Declined makes sense, "lost" doesn't. "US banks declined $472B in deposits in the Q1 2023" (fdic.gov) So they turned the money down? No, that doesn't sound right...
  - aezart 3y ago
    "US Bank deposits down $427B in Q1 2023" would make the most sense. I also read "lost" as "lost track of", as in "we received these deposits but then don't know where they went".

tekla 3y ago

Nitpick: a) No it doesn't. Here are mainstream news outlets that uses the word "Lost" in the context of bank deposits decreasing, and we all know what they mean, and no way implies that they don't know where the money went. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/business/economy/first-republic-earnings.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/24/business/economy/first-re... https://fortune.com/2023/04/24/first-republic-bank-loses-billions-deposits-first-quarter-plans-layoffs/ https://fortune.com/2023/04/24/first-republic-bank-loses-bil... b) The report itself doesn't use the word "Lost" once, so its a useless nitpick.

Ensorceled 3y ago
> we all know what they mean No, the readers of fortune and the NYT business sections do, "we all" do not. > The report itself doesn't use the word "Lost" once, so its a useless nitpick. Actually, it's pretty important, the FDIC avoided the word.
- tekla 3y ago
  If you're going to refuse to use common definitions and usages for words, even when used within appropriate context, I don't really know what to do with a completely different reality Lets go with dictionary.com https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lost https://www.dictionary.com/browse/lost > no longer possessed or retained: Now lets substitute that into the editorialized title "US banks no longer possessed or retained $472B in deposits in the Q1 2023" Wow, it still makes sense. Lets go to the FDIC now. https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/crisis/chap6.pdf https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/crisis/chap6.pdf > On the other hand, the bank’s franchise value (if any) is lost > For example, some assets might have lost value because asset management > In addition to the fees, loan servicing transfers may impose indirect costs, such as lost information or delays or miscommunications in addressing delinquencies. > A senior tranche is the least risky tranche in a securitization and takes losses only when all the other tranches have lost their full value. It doesn't seem like the FDIC has any issue with using the word "lost" in the context of "numbers went down"
  - Ensorceled 3y ago
    > Now lets substitute that into the editorialized title "US banks no longer possessed or retained $472B in deposits in the Q1 2023" From that same link, let's do the same thing with the other definitions of lost: "US banks can no longer find $472B in deposits in the Q1 2023" "US banks $472B in deposits have gone astray in the Q1 2023" It's not clear without reading the article and, given that the other definitions are FAR more newsworthy, it's an important distinction.