Only $5.7B out of $211.7B are insured
JPM at 32%
Thanks and you seem to be a bit ahead of understanding this, but as I understood it the stock/earnings for the bank (as a company) was taking a nose dive because they were in negative (but safe) instruments that would lock them into below market return.
I am trying to understand this, but shouldn’t the bank have bonds for the amounts deposited even if they cannot honor the promised return or did the executives (who paid themselves bonuses) sell too much at a loss to shore up the stock? I had read that they took a 1.something billion bath on treasuries BUT the bank had over 125 billion in deposits.
I know this is complex, but unless they did some SBF type shenanigans it would seem like the money would be there and the total losses would be the “stock value” more than an actual loss of deposits even if the woke techies lose money on their investments.
Rather than have my kids and grandkids pay for this maybe those who deposited more than 250k should simply take the loss because they invested poorly? Bailing out banks is evil and frankly it should be illegal. I never expected a bailout when I made a poor investment.
THAT is a very interesting list.
I did not go to the source to look but is there a way to look at a bank that is not listed here?
Why would so many depositors that are not corporations have so much unemployed money?
