SVB is not getting a bailout. It is dead. Its share price is $0 and all shareholders are walking away with nothing. The government's decision on whether to bail out its depositors or not isn't going to be (and shouldn't be) based on how well the bank was run, especially given that it was fully compliant with all regulations.
Depositors knowingly took the risk of having such large deposits there. They made this decision and should face the consequences of it, not the taxpayers.
SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all
31–40 of 88 posts
Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depositors knowingly took the risk of having such large deposits there. They made this decision and should face the consequences of it, not the taxpayers.
The collapse of the regional banking sector across the country and possibly silicon valley as a whole is going to affect regular taxpayers a lot more than a few billions in temporary spending by the federal government. Doubly so because most of the funds are in risk free securities that can be easily liquidated over time. Remember that SVB is one in a long list of small to mid sized banks that made such investments i…
Tan's proposed bailout is nothing like TARP
Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t have to use a bank. Cash is one option, and perhaps someday soon a self managed/federal CBDC. You can also put your cash into money market funds that invest in T-Bills, which is what anybody with some common sense and a large amount of money should do. But in this world entities that offer you a return on your money will still exist, e.g. banks. If I can register my cash and you pay me x% per year, that’s b…
>If you take a big chunk of credit creation and issuance out of service, the economy is likely to regress fairly significantly. Similarly, ceasing steroid use will reduce muscle mass.
We can move to a world without credit, but standard of living for people will drop significantly. Look at what happened when they tightened lending standards into a recession in the 1930s.
The key is to find the right balance in regulations to make the system robust
Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depositors knowingly took the risk of having such large deposits there. They made this decision and should face the consequences of it, not the taxpayers.
The collapse of the regional banking sector across the country and possibly silicon valley as a whole is going to affect regular taxpayers a lot more than a few billions in temporary spending by the federal government. Doubly so because most of the funds are in risk free securities that can be easily liquidated over time. Remember that SVB is one in a long list of small to mid sized banks that made such investments i…
Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
The root cause of all of this is that the US is so corrupt that a large bank was able to exempt itself from international banking standards. So it really is “the rest of us” who are to blame, by passively accepting corruption and feckless regulators. Taxpayers should pay the bill, it might incentivize them to get off their ass for once.
> Taxpayers should pay the bill, it might incentivize them to get off their ass for once like they did in 2008? I would rather pay off student loans
Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
The collapse of the regional banking sector across the country and possibly silicon valley as a whole is going to affect regular taxpayers a lot more than a few billions in temporary spending by the federal government. Doubly so because most of the funds are in risk free securities that can be easily liquidated over time. Remember that SVB is one in a long list of small to mid sized banks that made such investments i…
Nope. This is a commonly used scare tactic. Tan's proposed bailout is nothing like TARP
Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all
#37What's the point in having banks anyway. Why let the people in the bank earn anything if they are risking money that isn't theirs and that the government will pay back anyway if they fail. If banks are rescued from this, the only logical conclusion is that all banks should just cease to exist. Why should they get to play with what is effectively taxpayer's money, since that is where the risk will be paid from if they…
How it usually works is, when a bank fails and is "rescued", the shareholders (owners) who "get to play" with the money get nothing. The ones who are "rescued" are usually some/most of the debt holders. Letting debt holders also shoulder some of the costs is worth considering, but the authorities generally believe it's too risky (the risk being a huge amount of debt holders pulling their money and/or demanding much higher interests which raises general borrowing costs).
Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all
#38I wish people would distinguish between "SVB does not deserve a bailout" as in "let it fail" vs as in "wipe out the shareholders and bond holders, but, sure, bail out the depositors"
Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Taxpayers should pay the bill, it might incentivize them to get off their ass for once like they did in 2008? I would rather pay off student loans
What happened in 2008? I was very young then so I don’t know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932008_financial_cr...
Re: SVB does not deserve a bailout. They DID NOT hedge interest rate risk at all
#40What's the point in having banks anyway. Why let the people in the bank earn anything if they are risking money that isn't theirs and that the government will pay back anyway if they fail. If banks are rescued from this, the only logical conclusion is that all banks should just cease to exist. Why should they get to play with what is effectively taxpayer's money, since that is where the risk will be paid from if they…
> If banks are rescued from this, the only logical conclusion is that all banks should just cease to exist. Why should they get to play with what is effectively taxpayer's money, since that is where the risk will be paid from if they lose? How it usually works is, when a bank fails and is "rescued", the shareholders (owners) who "get to play" with the money get nothing. The ones who are "rescued" are usually some/mos…