SVB failure (2 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    17,971
    Reaction score
    24,858
    Location
    Midwest
    Offline
    This seems to be generating a lot of talk among the on-line tech set. I don’t really care why it failed or about the nuts and bolts, but I found the immediate calls for a government bail out of investors fascinating. This guy’s thread makes a great set of points about it.



    There’s an entire thread, not too long, well worth reading.
     

    "After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors."
    I’m all for protecting the depositors (up to the FDIC limit), however the execs and the folks that underwrote those loans can go pound rocks.

    I think we can all agree on that, right?
     
    Last edited:
    I’m all for protecting the depositors (up to the FDIC limit), however the execs and the folks that underwrote those loans can go pound rocks.

    I think we can all agree on that, right?


    by "pound rocks" do you mean spend the rest of their adult lives turning large rocks into little ones while shackled?

    If so, yes.
     
    we have been incredibly

    In fact I am in commercial banking.

    I am also neither a Republican or Democrat, so when I say that both Trump and Clinton’s repeals of important financial safeguards, I’m certainly not coming from a place of bias.

    I’m lost on your point about the plan to reinstate HR 1489. While it would have been great to have these sections reinstated, it’s pretty sad that the topic was one approached once in 24 years. It’s odd that no matter which party has had majority, they have never been able to figure this out (especially in the last 14 years since our last meltdown).

    Also, I can read a balance sheet, but I’m failing to see where your 30/1 D/R numbers came from. This website shows that it had 84 sponsors (not 31), and more than one R sponsored this. The math ain’t mathing.


    I’m sure that we will see a lot of changes following this situation….lol.

    How many Rs sponsored that bill?

    Ove the last 30 years, how many Democrats are Banking CEOs?

    The point i was making, maths aside, was that Republicans consistently push for "deregulation" which leaves us in this spot. Having, yet again, to secure the depositors. FDIC came in yet again to assure deposits were FULLY protected.

    Who pays for this?

    But even more upsetting, is that WITH minimal regulation, industries continue to probe/prod for the weakspots/loopholes. Rules and regulations are in place to discourage this behavior. We remove them, thinking things will "work themselves out" and here we are. Bailing out yet another banking institution for attempting to find a weak spot, to grow, increase deposits, make $$$$ and become the 15th largest bank in the country.

    I can assure you that SVB didnt start out in 1983 looking to be the 15th largest bank. But along the way, the $$$ started to roll in, and changed their paradigm of what was important.

    Rules and regulations assist in "reeling that in" in some regards. But until there is a unified structure in place, we will continue to have institutions like SVB

    And its absolutely no different in my industry of commercial insurance ( agency side, not company side ). Some of my largest competitors do stuff that push the boundaries of the regulations, but do so in a manner that doesnt alert regulators and even if it did, "clerical error" is the likely cause. Its a game. I tend to steer clear of those competitors and the prospects they covet because i have no interest in playing the game.
     
    How many Rs sponsored that bill?

    Ove the last 30 years, how many Democrats are Banking CEOs?

    The point i was making, maths aside, was that Republicans consistently push for "deregulation" which leaves us in this spot. Having, yet again, to secure the depositors. FDIC came in yet again to assure deposits were FULLY protected.

    Who pays for this?

    But even more upsetting, is that WITH minimal regulation, industries continue to probe/prod for the weakspots/loopholes. Rules and regulations are in place to discourage this behavior. We remove them, thinking things will "work themselves out" and here we are. Bailing out yet another banking institution for attempting to find a weak spot, to grow, increase deposits, make $$$$ and become the 15th largest bank in the country.

    I can assure you that SVB didnt start out in 1983 looking to be the 15th largest bank. But along the way, the $$$ started to roll in, and changed their paradigm of what was important.

    Rules and regulations assist in "reeling that in" in some regards. But until there is a unified structure in place, we will continue to have institutions like SVB

    And it’s absolutely no different in my industry of commercial insurance ( agency side, not company side ). Some of my largest competitors do stuff that push the boundaries of the regulations, but do so in a manner that doesnt alert regulators and even if it did, "clerical error" is the likely cause. It’s a game. I tend to steer clear of those competitors and the prospects they covet because i have no interest in playing the game.


    We are about to learn more in the coming days as to how this all came to be.

    Happy to engage with you on this subject later today (or whenever things slow down). As you can imagine things are incredibly busy, so it will be hard to find time.

    Just know, Biden blaming “Big Banks” for this is like Grandpa blaming rock and roll, and weed for the uptick in crime.

    There is more to this than what you are hearing.
    by "pound rocks" do you mean spend the rest of their adult lives turning large rocks into little ones while shackled?

    If so, yes.
    that is actually what I mean. I’m for letting the banks fail. Those people are eroding whatever trust happens to be left in our financial system.
     
    Honest questions - what does letting the banks fail mean? And how would allowing banks to fail increase trust in our financial systems?

    Also - count me on the side of easily seeing that more Rs than Ds are on the wrong side of this issue. If you think the right side is protecting the consumer and preventing fraud, anyway. 🤷‍♀️ The wrong side IMO would be for allowing predatory bank practices and no oversight of risky behavior by banks.
     
    Honest questions - what does letting the banks fail mean? And how would allowing banks to fail increase trust in our financial systems?

    Also - count me on the side of easily seeing that more Rs than Ds are on the wrong side of this issue. If you think the right side is protecting the consumer and preventing fraud, anyway. 🤷‍♀️ The wrong side IMO would be for allowing predatory bank practices and no oversight of risky behavior by banks.
    Letting the banks fail means just what it means. Like letting any company fail. Take care of those who have money in the bank (it’s not their fault that the bank didn’t abide by regulations), and allow those existing lines of credit to be bought by interested firms, but put the bank out of business. They were playing too loose with regulations, and that is what caused things like SLVB.

    Regulators have to fight to gain confidence back, and the first thing that regulators need to do is keep people calm, then run some stress tests, and then see what’s left to salvage with the bank.
     
    Last edited:
    I saw where at least one person was on Twitter raising concerns about a total collapse of the banking system, predicting doom and gloom, while at the same time boasting that he had shorted bank stocks.

    This seems to be attempted market manipulation, done in the open. It will be interesting to see if there is any federal response to these folks.
     
    Last edited:
    looks like signature bank as well

    Signature had $110 billion in assets as of Dec. 31, ranking 29th among U.S. banks. It had $88 billion in deposits as of that date, and approximately 89.7% were not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
     
    I saw where at least one person was on Twitter raising concerns about a total collapse of the baking system, predicting doom and gloom, while at the same time boasting that he had shorted bank stocks.

    This seems to be attempted market manipulation, done in the open. It will be interesting to see if there is any federal response to these folks.
    Yeah; there is a lot of fear mongering going on right now. Our firm isn’t soliciting business, but we are calling clients to let them know that we are aware of what’s going on, and letting them know that we are a port in the storm.

    From the Feds announcement this weekend, things will be bad, but not financial collapse bad. Anyone telling you otherwise is trying to get you off your seat.
     
    Last edited:
    looks like signature bank as well

    Signature had $110 billion in assets as of Dec. 31, ranking 29th among U.S. banks. It had $88 billion in deposits as of that date, and approximately 89.7% were not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
    Regional banks (heck, any bank) playing loose with regulations (not performing stress tests, not keeping an adequate balance sheet) are like the kid who touched the hot stove, and then followed it up by licking the hot stove.
     
    364 days out of the year I don’t care if you people live or die, lol. But today I don’t want anyone making any panic decisions, and buying into unsubstantiated news.
     
    Did Peter Theil cause this?

    Would SVB have failed if there hadn't been a run by depositors last week?
     
    looks like signature bank as well

    Signature had $110 billion in assets as of Dec. 31, ranking 29th among U.S. banks. It had $88 billion in deposits as of that date, and approximately 89.7% were not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation


    I just read SVB was in MBSes

    gee, where have i heard THAT term before?


    Im just tired of banks seeing "moral hazard" and pretending it doesnt exist.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom