SVB failure (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    18,931
    Reaction score
    25,919
    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.
     
    Also reading that somewhere north of 90% of the bank’s deposits were NOT insured by FDIC. That seems crazy to me.
     
    I don't know why would you bail out this bank. I can understand identifying distressed companies that are now having issues making payroll.

    My understanding is the main reason for the run was they put money in 10 year treasury securities paying 1.5% and interest rates went up to 5-6%. They had to sale once VC investment dried up.

    This is capitalism. A bigger bank should buy up most of the assets, and some % above the FDIC insured amount will be returned.
     
    Also reading that somewhere north of 90% of the bank’s deposits were NOT insured by FDIC. That seems crazy to me.

    I read Roku had 497mm ...in a money market accoun. That's why they said they aren't insured. It wasn't a savings account. They said they really don't know if they will see a dime of that loss. But they have over 1.6B in cash (at other banks).
     
    I read Roku had 497mm ...in a money market accoun. That's why they said they aren't insured. It wasn't a savings account. They said they really don't know if they will see a dime of that loss. But they have over 1.6B in cash (at other banks).
    All deposits are insured up to $250k per depositor. I don’t think it matters what kind of account it is, it’s that it was over the insurance limit.
     
    Peter Thiel is apparently thought by some to have purposefully caused the bank run.



    Thiel is sort of a Steve Bannon type I’m reading.
     
    People will look to Trumps roll back of Dodd Frank, and say that is what allowed this to happen, but they will not engage in Clinton’s roll back of Glass Steagle which greased the banana shoot to 08, and now 23.

    You are about to witness the most bipartisan effort in the last x amount of years, and after all is said and done, shirt won’t change.
     
    People will look to Trumps roll back of Dodd Frank, and say that is what allowed this to happen, but they will not engage in Clinton’s roll back of Glass Steagle which greased the banana shoot to 08, and now 23.

    You are about to witness the most bipartisan effort in the last x amount of years, and after all is said and done, shirt won’t change.
    Be careful. People will cry if you accuse both Democrats and Republicans of something.
     
    People will look to Trumps roll back of Dodd Frank, and say that is what allowed this to happen, but they will not engage in Clinton’s roll back of Glass Steagle which greased the banana shoot to 08, and now 23.

    You are about to witness the most bipartisan effort in the last x amount of years, and after all is said and done, shirt won’t change.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't you in commercial banking?


    Clinton only repealed section 20 and 32 because the Hill said deregulation was key to banking health.

    An attempt was made in 2011 to reinstate. Hr 1489. Co sponsored by 30 Ds and 1 R. Never made it out of committee.

    Had to settle for Dodd Frank. Cuz Rs love deregulation.

    And that got repealed.
     
    No, both sides are obviously the same! 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
     

    "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."
     
    we have been incredibly
    Correct me if I'm wrong, aren't you in commercial banking?


    Clinton only repealed section 20 and 32 because the Hill said deregulation was key to banking health.

    An attempt was made in 2011 to reinstate. Hr 1489. Co sponsored by 30 Ds and 1 R. Never made it out of committee.

    Had to settle for Dodd Frank. Cuz Rs love deregulation.

    And that got repealed.
    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.
     

    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