pishpash

20 ms·

361.
by pishpash 4y ago
That was before QE. What's some bonds to the Fed when they are the kind it would buy for its own balance sheet anyway? The issue is, one, they are in QT right now; two, buying isn't enough, as these are perfectly marketable securi
362.
by pishpash 4y ago
The known portfolio isn't toxic with more time. It's just Treasury bonds and MBS. In fact they are rising in price because of SVB. However, the suspected problem is the unpublicized part of the portfolio. Some here say there are f
363.
by pishpash 4y ago
How can they claw back withdrawals?
364.
by pishpash 4y ago
You already have circuit-breakers and other ad-hoc stoppages. The market needs no rest every fricking day.
365.
by pishpash 4y ago
They worry about banks because they are a bank. If it weren't for government oversight they'd be a private bank.
366.
by pishpash 4y ago
They did a terrible job after the Euro sovereign debt crisis passed, so let's say after 2014, and they did a terrible job starting mid-2021, after vaccines and opening up. Always too slow to raise rates and stop financial froth that wa
367.
by pishpash 4y ago
We've just seen there is no difference with SVB, because they tried to get a private rescuer to bail them out. Didn't work. Because why would a private rescuer lose liquidity to a lower paying assets (SVB's book) when they c
368.
by pishpash 4y ago
Yes, why did they invest in MBS, with negative convexity, at historically low rates!
369.
by pishpash 4y ago
Banks don't pay the Fed rate on deposits so they already have that to pay expenses. In fact more deposits = more money on the interest differential but expenses don't scale with money.
370.
by pishpash 4y ago
No, they were greedy. They were going to lose it one way or another, either through inflation or through asset depreciation. There was no way around it. Going to a riskier asset doesn't help because all assets have the same interest-ra
371.
by pishpash 4y ago
All liquidity issues are solvency issues when marked to market.
372.
by pishpash 4y ago
I was talking about offering it on new deposits. If your old deposits are not duration-matched then yes, you are screwed.
373.
by pishpash 4y ago
Too much money is only a problem if you are greedy for returns, like all the investors who lost money when yields were unsustainably low the last few years. They could have deposited it with the Fed and have been totally fine. Individual in
374.
by pishpash 4y ago
It is not unrelated to the bank. They took concentrated callable funding that somehow was not matched to the liquidity of their assets. They took a risk.
375.
by pishpash 4y ago
Why would customers be pulling deposits unless you are offering lower than market interest rate? If T-bills are 3%, they can pay depositors 2% now and so whatever condition kept the customers there at -1% risk premium would still keep them
376.
by pishpash 4y ago
What is "that specific machine"? There can be an arbitrary number of generative AI's like that trained on similar data that would behave similarly. Or it could be a different one that the author would need different prompts f
377.
by pishpash 4y ago
If you read the USCO administrative letter [1], it wasn't complexity that killed the claim, it was stochasticity. That's a much shakier ground to stand on and only serves to highlight the deciding officer's inability to grasp
378.
by pishpash 4y ago
Suppose you wrote this AI yourself, and you trained it on data you own. Does it change anything? It makes no sense that because there is an AI in the middle, that you lose copyright over the output. What if you trained it on public domain d
379.
by pishpash 4y ago
Nothing is purely mechanically produced. There is always some input. In this case, the images were produced from prompts and entropy. The author clearly should own the prompts. Nobody should own the entropy. So who owns the output, if not t
380.
by pishpash 4y ago
Depends on where you are. Shows "Currently unavailable." for me. Also, +$9.95 for delivery. Who knows if Amazon is willing to deliver to you because of that and empty the store shelves instead? So again, unless you see them with y
381.
by pishpash 4y ago
Shrinkflation is captured: https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-12/measuring-shrinkflati...
382.
by pishpash 4y ago
Did you see them with your eyeballs at the store? You miss the point of the parent completely.
383.
by pishpash 4y ago
If prices didn't increase you could allocate eggs by lottery, or limit quantities. Some stores did limit quantities. Charging more for a product to allocate demand doesn't necessarily increase profits. If the profits aren't i
384.
by pishpash 4y ago
And sometimes stealing everything that's not nailed down is the way work gets done, i.e. disruption. Trying to manage this out based on some anodyne rules out of a committee makes for a perfectly harmonious but completely static, risk-
385.
by pishpash 4y ago
Gmail isn't old enough. Go back another generation, AOL, Yahoo mail, etc. Best bet is probably some university email address. Now those are long-lived, if they let you keep it.
386.
by pishpash 4y ago
And even if they did, some need your old email address to approve a change of email address, essentially locking you out. DocuSign is one.
387.
by pishpash 4y ago
Great, introduce slang to languages, what could go wrong?
388.
by pishpash 4y ago
It also didn't go up that much. 1.7%?
389.
by pishpash 4y ago
What's the mystery? It was to get in on the device platform game: walled garden, app store, ads, subscriptions, control, etc., same as Google, Apple, Meta, and even Microsoft and Sony.
390.
by pishpash 4y ago
It's a good point that the organic structure that PageRank or whatever relied on and that used to exist may not exist any more. The same question has been asked about what happens when everyone uses index funds, and the answer is proba

More ›