Ahhh the ol "Nice try guys, we'll gettem next time!" treatment.

She is Running Wild Here Now with this news

[deleted]

[removed]

She maybe Sharon Stone, but I’m fucking stoned and don’t know what does this mean:

> “And right now, that's courage, too, because I know what's happening. I just lost half my money to this banking thing, and that doesn't mean that I'm not here.”

This is criminal. Who would want to lend money to swiss companies after they screwed over bondholders?

And yet she is still 100x better off….

She could have recuperated her loss if she was younger. Just open them legs. As you age, even if she paid you to look, you would close your eyes 🫣. Talk about devalue like all my stocks now.

Although this is not entirely true as contingent convertible bonds have specific covenants which allow them to be completely written off at certain trigger activation scenarios. Senior corporate bonds in perpetuity or junior subordinated bonds with fixed maturity usually don’t have such covenants and consequently are still impervious to such precedence.

Legally FINMA would never take such an action if they didn’t have a strong argument for the inevitable lawsuit that is to be followed. ‘Yes Bank’ in India is one such example where they wrote off AT1 bonds in their entirety before shareholders and had a high court ruling against their favour so not all hope is lost. Although, Credit Suisse is quite clear on their bond prospectus so their future ruling could go anywhere. But in principle, I agree that bondholders even if they’re CoCos should be given precedence over shareholders and FINMA’s stance may have something to do with Credit Suisse’s own management incentive.

Disclaimer: I personally have invested into high-yield bond funds and this news is definitely devastating for these specific funds and ipso facto my own portfolio.

These CEO's of which you speak, may have shit on themselves if they want to end up at another bank. The problem is that by disrespecting the capitalization stack whereby bond holders had precedent over equity holder, a convention that had been a given for over 100 years, it will now make it harder for Banks to build a capital base by issuing bonds. This in turn will either make lending more expensive for borrowers or reduce the profitability for banks going forward. This was a terrible precedent.

Half, so far

I think she said it before depositors were made whole.

You belong here. Shares are insured as in your brokerage can’t just gamble them away. But if the share price drops 50%, or gets bought out for $0.50 on the dollar you really do lose half.

Shares are insured SIPC

She should demand a Total Recall of all her funds.

She still has the other 'big' half, I don't and will never have...

Shares or bonds

Niice

Boners...

How can that happen if fdic is backing all the depositors. For someone that has them legs open wide, She’s full of crap

[removed]

You’re very naive if you think it was the Swiss government. The big corporate CEOs wanted a big pay day at the expense of your moms and pops retirement funds for their own ineptitude.

Can't wait to see her to re-enact that Basic Instinct scene on her OnlyFans account

She doesn't have a Sliver of hope because the banks are Above the Law.

Buy FRC with the rest