4th largest shareholder in SVB
4th largest shareholder in Signature Bank
5th largest shareholder in First Republic bank.
Lets call it 3 out of 3.
4th largest shareholder in Signature Bank
5th largest shareholder in First Republic bank.
Lets call it 3 out of 3.
Some investments will underperform, and some will overperform. All you should care about is keeping up with inflation, which it should since it is invested in a representative set of the businesses that make up the market.
Very annoying for the layperson that dividend returns are often much harder to find than stock value
Also, IRAs already exist. No reason for an employer to be in the middle.
[1] https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/investing/can-i-have-a-40....
Every 15 years some banks fail and we shake our heads. But by and large, investing in banks is probably one of the safest investments one can make, no?
A lack of sufficient opportunity for diversification isn't a problem with the fund, it's a problem with the (investment) market. Offer more opportunities for diversification and the problem resolves. Too bad the economic trend is to consolidate businesses instead of keeping them separate; too bad entrepreneurship is declining; too bad more and more new companies decide to stay private instead of aiming for an IPO.
It’s hard to tell if you’re just being ignorant or deliberately trying to spread FUD.
- Vanguard Group 11.25% (of outstanding shares)
- Blackrock 8.05%
- State Street 5.21%
JPM was n. 5
Which institution can honestly offer any kind of product hedging against $620 billions of losses without, itself, going bankrupt should people try to exercise their hedge?
Basically the headlines, instead of being: "SVB goes down for it has $20 bn of unrealized losses" would be, instead, "SVB goes down for it has $20 bn of hedged unrealized losses, but the institution which is supposed to cover the hedge is bankrupt for it miscalculated and cannot cover $620 bn".
Turns out they used 2 of those 5% for investing in these banks.
It is not a disaster though, not even close to a disaster. And talking about banking and market economy, they most likely gained much more money from that than they lost. It just happened very quickly .
I think what they did was invest too heavily in up&coming banks rather than traditional banks. With the rationale that their technology was more modern.
The CEO of Alecta even said in an interview that the 50%+ drop of "First Republic bank" isn't a loss because it hasn't been realized yet. It wouldn't surprise me if he had to leave before the week is over.