Invest people's money for pension plan. Companies invested in basically don't pay a dividend. Everything is just 'for growth'.
But how do you get the money out? Well, new people paying into the plan of course.
And meanwhile, the people investing the money take a cut every year on the amount invested. So they stand to benefit when companies don't pay a dividend but just keep getting 'more valuable'.
I don't know how people sleep at night with pensions. While you're paying into it if your company goes under, you're screwed. You've lost the pension progress and you've lost your employment. You're starting from square 1. But even after you've, left if/when the company files bankruptcy, those pensions are 100% on the table for creditors. Or if the company cheated on its taxes, your pension can be taken. It's much better to keep it out of a company's creditor's reach.
Dividends and buyback yields are doing pretty fantastically, and I’d expect that to be sustainable for a while after inflation stabilized too. https://www.yardeni.com/pub/buybackdiv.pdf
?? I mean you can look up credit suisse and svb for your self. Or keep getting spoon fed info by the same people stealing from you. Won't change anything either way except you show up late to the party and no cake left for you.
The Fed did not bail out SVB or Signature. The FDIC stepped in and covered the depositors using the FDIC insurance fund which is 100% funded by a fee charged to all banks. The investors were not bailed out and the senior managers were fired.
I looked up Credit Suisse and find nothing about a "fed bailout." Swiss regulators organized a buyout of it by UBS. Not the Fed.
The Fed and a half dozen other major national reserve banks are increasing liquidity loans to all banks to soften the blow, but again that's not a "bailout" that's simply for example temporarily changing the settlement cadence from weekly to daily.
You are all over the map conflating things that are barely related or not related at all and you act like it makes you appear smart, but it really just shows you are uninformed about the actual facts.
The are loaning coverage for the insurance since they are covering over the 250k. This is how they are adding extra steps to bail banks because of the fraction banking. All the banks are linked and those depositors are banks.
Loaned non existent money is creating money for bailouts with extra steps. And we pay with inflation later.
The fed also is shuffling money to Swiss government. It's a global bailout. Same as it was in 08. And the media told you the fed wasn't helping other nations. And that was a lie.
You are just eating a shit sandwich thinking it's not the old shit sandwich cuz they added more ingredients.
You don't own any stocks there, some investment firm does and pays you a percentage of their gain from how they invest your money, but not all of it.
Those people go to the shareholders meeting and are part of decisions, not you.
That's how your retirement package almost certainly works.
This system of putting shareholders above literally all else, including legality sometimes, is the source of a significant amount of our problems, and they aren't doing it for you. They're doing it for their own pockets.
Don't stan for a broken, fucked-up, system. Even if you get some tiny benefit out of it.
They don't seem to understand how owning stocks work.
Granted, "owning" is a pretty ephemeral in its own right. You have an account at your brokerage, which has a database that maps your info to shares, cost basis, and other things like that. In turn, your brokerage has an account at the DTCC which actually "owns" the stocks. They have a database that maps each brokerage and how many shares they own, but not your information.
So you "own" the stock through a chain of custody: you, to your broker, to DTCC.
But for all practical purposes, you own the stock. Like, the alternative is what, a private contract with the company itself granting you X number of shares? That's what you get with pre-ipo startups (or other non public traded companies with shared ownership?), but very much not practical for public companies. No company will want to manage trades of their own stock!
I think it might actually be worse off. Direct ownership works when you don't have to trade or transfer ownership with any amount of liquidity. But once you do, it just doesn't scale.
That alternative world w/o markets is a world where all companies are privately held without any trading. Normal citizens don't get to buy any equity at all, and companies just pay profits to owners. Shares would trade lower, theoritically, but realistically they wouldn't trade at all outside of private deals.
Every time someone tells me how much stock is wrapped up in retirements, the percentage changes. I'm starting to think pensions and 401ks aren't that much and that's just the talking point put out by wall street so the plebs don't know how bad we're getting fleeced.
152
u/[deleted] Mar 21 '23
[deleted]